W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2011

[whatwg] WebVTT feedback (was Re: Video feedback)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:07:19 +1000
Message-ID: <BANLkTin8Bj+_pExW917Y24iuqC+H7AsMdg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 09:32:04 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Note that where his implementation differs from the spec, he has made
>> a note. There are only two such notes. I'd like to see these
>> addressed, too.
>
> Could you please post these to the list so that we not all have to read
> those documents?

Good point. :-) (Just search for "differs"). Here they are - with some
additional descriptions:

1. [text track cue] size:
"this document differs from specs in that way that [text track cue] is
as width (for horizontal, height for vertical) as the widest (for
horizontal, highest for vertical) [text track cue line] within"

What Ronny says there is that in his implementation the default
display size of the cue (i.e. the dark box that the cue is displayed
in) is only as wide as the longest line in the cue (or high where
we're dealing with vertical direction). Currently, the spec puts as a
default S:100%.

I personally also prefer this smaller default cue width because it
covers less content of the video.


2. Cue voice tag:
"this differs from specs in the way that opened <v> voice tags should
be closed with </v>"

Ronny's point is that the <v> element is expected to be closed,
because it makes it easier to parse. So, instead of:

00:01:07.395 --> 00:01:10.246
<v John Do>Hey!
<v Jane Doe>Hello!

he expects:

00:01:07.395 --> 00:01:10.246
<v John Do>Hey!</v>
<v Jane Doe>Hello!</v>

I think the same is true for his implementation of the <c> class tags.


Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Monday, 27 June 2011 01:07:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:06 UTC