W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2010

[whatwg] Fwd: Discussing WebSRT and alternatives/improvements

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:43:15 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=JNmjR=gTqTsmtaVot4M9UXcgXMZ4=_gNy6s8+@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>wrote:

> On 12.08.2010 10:09, Philip J?genstedt wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> The core "problem" is that WebSRT is far too compatible with existing SRT
>> usage. Regardless of the file extension and MIME type used, it's quite
>> improbable that anyone will have different parsers for the same format. Once
>> media players have been forced to handle the extra markup in WebSRT (e.g. by
>> ignoring it, as many already do) the two formats will be the same, and using
>> WebSRT markup in .srt files will just work, so that's what people will do.
>> We may avoid being seen as arrogant format-hijackers, but the end result is
>> two extensions and two different MIME types that mean exactly the same
>> thing.
>>
> > ...
>
> (just observing...)
>
> So when something that used to be plain text now carries markup, what's the
> compatibility story for plain text that happens to contain markup
> characters, such as "<", ">" or "&"?
>
> Best regards, Julian
>

I assume you mean: what happens to text that contains such characters? In
most SRT systems, such stuff will just be displayed verbatim.

Cheers,
Silvia.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100818/65b2731d/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 15:43:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:00 UTC