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

[whatwg] Timed tracks: feedback compendium

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:21:02 +0200
Message-ID: <op.vkzbdcnwsr6mfa@kirk>
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:18:09 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp at opera.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:09:24 +0200, Philip J?genstedt  
> <philipj at opera.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Anyway, I agree that at least a magic header like "WebSRT" is needed  
>>>>> because
>>>>> of the horrors of legacy SRT parsing.
>>>
>>> I don't see why we can't just consume the legacy and support it in  
>>> WebSRT. Part of the point with WebSRT is to support the legacy. If we  
>>> don't want to support the legacy, then the format can be made a lot  
>>> cleaner.
>>
>> Did you read  
>> <http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-October/028799.html>  
>> and look at <http://ale5000.altervista.org/subtitles.htm>?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> Do you think it's a good idea to make WebSRT an extension of  
>> ale5000-SRT?
>
> Yes. :-) We could remove stuff from ale5000-SRT if there isn't interop  
> already and the relevant vendors agree to remove it from their impls.

If so, please take up the discussion with the relevant developers, in  
particular VLC has a large market share and opinions on this matter. I am  
not hopeful at all that it would work out.

>> My opinion is that it's not a very good idea, which of course we can  
>> simplify some aspects of the format. For example, we don't need to  
>> allow both , and . as the millisecond separator, and the time parsing  
>> in general can be made more sane.
>
> Do you think browsers will support vanilla SRT (i.e. ale5000-SRT) as  
> well?

No, one format is exactly the number I want.

-- 
Philip J?genstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 06:21:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:01 UTC