W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-texttracks@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Signature and LF

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:44:52 +0000 (UTC)
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
cc: public-texttracks@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1202151644370.10315@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:33:48 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Simon Pieters wrote:
> > > 
> > > Before I brought up that there was a mismatch between the text/vtt 
> > > registration's "WebVTT files all begin with one of the following 
> > > byte sequences:" and the WebVTT parser's handling of the signature. 
> > > Hixie made a change to the parser to address it, but they still 
> > > don't match.
> > > 
> > > Consider a file that contains "WEBVTT foo" and no LFs. It matches 
> > > the text/vtt's registration, but the parser rejects it in step 9, 
> > > because there's no LF.
> > > 
> > > I think the parser step 5 should be changed to collect characters 
> > > that are not LF, space or tab, and then check that the collected 
> > > characters are "WEBVTT", and then if the next character is space or 
> > > tab, skip characters that are not LF, and remove step 9.
> > 
> > Doesn't really matter, surely. I mean, the file is empty.
> 
> I think it matters enough to file the bug and change our tests and impl 
> (which we have already done).

Is the difference only whether onload fires vs onerror?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:45:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 8 May 2014 13:18:50 UTC