Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WR/ARIB] Compatibility with ARIB-TTML / 3. Animation #548

Open
himorin opened this issue May 8, 2020 · 2 comments
Open

[WR/ARIB] Compatibility with ARIB-TTML / 3. Animation #548

himorin opened this issue May 8, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@himorin
Copy link
Contributor

himorin commented May 8, 2020

Per: w3c/ttwg#116
Comment 3 (#545), 3

Simple animation can be embedded in an ARIB-TTML document with “arib-tt:keyframes” and “arib-tt:animation” elelments. The “arib-tt:keyframes” element specifies an object to be animated and its appearance such as a set of images, color, and size. The “arib-tt:animation” element specifies how the object specified by the “arib-tt:keyframes” element is animated such as duration, number of iteration, and transition effect.

@nigelmegitt
Copy link
Contributor

Animation of this sort requires support for the TTML2 feature #animation-version-2. This is not yet included in IMSC.

One action to consider is adding this to the requirements for a future version of IMSC, especially if there is implementer interest.

@css-meeting-bot
Copy link
Member

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed [WR/ARIB] Compatibility with ARIB-TTML / 3. Animation imsc#548, and agreed to the following:

  • SUMMARY: TTWG is interested to know more about the usage of these features, and complexity of implementation.
The full IRC log of that discussion <nigel> Topic: [WR/ARIB] Compatibility with ARIB-TTML / 3. Animation imsc#548
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/548
<nigel> Cyril: Nigel noted it matches #animation-version-2.
<nigel> .. I think our answer is similar to #546 that we would like to have use cases and examples.
<nigel> Nigel: And I assume complexity is an issue here too.
<nigel> Cyril: Yes
<nigel> Nigel: Looking at it from a spec development perspective it would be easy to add, but
<nigel> .. a lot of work for implementers.
<nigel> Pierre: That's an understatement. We need to know more details about what support is
<nigel> .. needed, especially from an interop perspetive.
<nigel> s/etiv/ective
<nigel> SUMMARY: TTWG is interested to know more about the usage of these features, and complexity of implementation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants