On Thursday, June 2, 2005, 6:32:45 PM, Ned wrote:
Thanks, but now I am lost. Why is this a 'video' stream and not a 'text' stream, then?
NF> Presumably because the intent is to display this as video. The rules for what NF> can fit under video are pretty loose; this is certainly an acceptable use of NF> the video top-level type. Text, OTOH, is usually thought of as a series of NF> lines and not as a stream of characters. Text is certainly a sequence of characters, which may or may not be preformatted into 'lines'. Other characteristics of text are that spell-checking and translation to a different language are reasonable things to do with it. Whether the text/* top level type is like that is another matter again, of course; that type having sufficient problems that it should really not be used for anything much beyond text/plain; charset=us-ascii. NF> My (incorrect) understanding was that video was an unacceptable choice due to NF> SDP constraints. Without that constraint I would have been pushing for this NF> to go under video from the beginning. Timed text, because of its time dependent nature, is an arguable fit for video (but something of a stretch). There is probably a need for a more reasonably defined top level type, like textual/* or something, but the timescales and amount of effort to establish such a thing are non-negligible. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead