Re: Change ::cue(foo) to ::cue foo

• From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
• Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:32:02 -0700
• To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
• Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dimitri Glazkov <dglazkov@google.com>, Hayato Ito <hayato@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, William Chen <wchen@mozilla.com>, Blake Kaplan <mrbkap@mozilla.com>, Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, Dominic Cooney <dominicc@chromium.org>, Takashi Sakamoto <tasak@google.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
• Message-id: <m2ppv7qual.fsf@eoconnor.apple.com>

Hi,

Tab wrote:

>> OK. So should we change ::cue(foo) to ::cue foo?
>
> If possible, yeah.

I think we should retain ::cue's functional syntax. VTT's markup lives
in a different world from the <video> element's document, and the
functional syntax makes that clear:

  foo bar baz video::cue(wormhole to other world)

If we drop the functional syntax, you get this:

  foo bar baz video::cue thing-that-looks-like-it's-in-the-main-document

VTT documents are conceptually more separate from the HTML documents
which link to them than Shadow DOM trees are from their light DOM hosts;
it's a good thing for this to be syntactically different.


Ted

P.S. I'm not on public-texttracks, so please CC me if you'd like a reply.

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 18:32:37 UTC