- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:51:21 +1000
- To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-texttracks@w3.org
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> No it's not, but it's easier to put DRM on muxed files than on plain text >> files. > > > (Sure, but that's not why people mux captions into .MKVs.) > >> It was at one stage. I doubt they will do it again - with or without >> muxed files. If they were, I would indeed hope it to be muxed. I >> would, however, not expect browsers to implement automated muxing from >> video+track markup (it would be nice, but I'm not hopeful, because it >> creates a different content to the one that was published). So, when >> downloading (right click "save video as") you will continue to get >> individual files for the foreseeable future. > > > I don't think there are any hard problems in the way of browsers making > "save as" automatically mux everything together, but I agree it's more > likely to be a server-side feature for a while. > >> TL;DR: we should probably move on to say: no matter our motivation, we >> agree that we need metadata in vtt files. Let's design the solution. > > > I think we mostly have a basic proposal from the previous thread. To sum it > up without repeating all the details, it would look like: > > Key: value > > or > > Key: | > value > value > . > > Key include "kind", "srclang", "label" and "default", with the provision > that if a value conflicts with the value specified by a container (eg. > <track> or WebM track data), the container's value takes precedence. Yes, indeed! So much fun debating!! ;-) Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Friday, 8 June 2012 04:52:10 UTC