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

STL2SLTXML: Mapping of TTI blocks containing comments #27

Open
pthopesch opened this issue Feb 2, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

STL2SLTXML: Mapping of TTI blocks containing comments #27

pthopesch opened this issue Feb 2, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@pthopesch
Copy link
Contributor

In the current scf verison 0.2.8, TTI blocks from an STL file that contain comments are ignored when transforming from STL to STLXML. These comments should be mapped as well in order to achieve a "better" XML representation of the STL file.

CF set to 00h --> TTI Block contains subtitle data
CF set to 01h --> TTI Block contains comments

The mapping of the text field (TF) of a comment should be handled is the same way that a normal subtitle is.

The description of the requirement no. 214 "Comment Flag mapping" should be updated accordingly.

@braincoded
Copy link

+1 A very good point!

@pthopesch
Copy link
Contributor Author

Comments should be mapped from STLXML to EBU-TT according to EBU-TT Part 2:

"The text content of a comment TTI block in an STL file may be placed into an ebuttExt:comment element. The ebuttExt:comment element must itself be a child element of a tt:metadata element, which must be the first child element of the containing tt:p element. The TTI block containing the comment may be associated with subtitle text in another TTI block (by having matching TCI and TCO values or SN value), or may be independently timed, as below: [...]" Page 35

@nigelmegitt
Copy link

I think we will probably be deprecating ebuttExt and will just make this metadata in ebuttm, to be confirmed.

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

4 participants