Re: WebVTT spec

On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Mar 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> > >
> > > I would move the constructor to WebVTTCue, so that the hiearachy is:
> > >
> > >    EventTarget
> > >     |
> > >    TextTrackCue -----------------------+
> > >     |                                  |
> > >    WebVTTCue (has constructor)        FooTTCue (has constructor)
> > >
> > > ...where "FooTT" is some other text track format.
> >
> > Would TextTrackCue also have a constructor? I.e. do we have a generic
> > text track cue format?
>
> Well, without rules for how to render the cue (rules which are format-
> specific), I don't really see what that such a constructor would do.
>
> I suppose we could define some simple generic rules, but why would authors
> use that instead of just WebVTT cues?
>

Yup, fair enough. So we'd put TextTrackCue still into the HTML spec, but
move WebVTTCue and everything else WebVTT specific into a WebVTT extension
specification for HTML?

I've got a script creating the current WebVTT spec from the source file. I
assume we'd move all WebVTT related things out? I can start preparing this
and when we're happy with it, we can remove it from source ?

Will try and catch you on irc to discuss.

Cheers,
Silvia.