- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 13:06:18 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21851 --- Comment #27 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #26) > Sorry for late reply, I've been on vacation. Sure. It only just happened. > I prefer my proposal to have a new constructor for unparsed cues instead of > repurposing TextTrackCue, detailed at the end of comment 20, for the reasons > given at the end of comment 20. > > TextTrackCue looks like it would give a usable object that gets rendered > (and it does in existing implementations), but instead you get an unparsed > object that does not get rendered. This is not obvious and is hard to debug. Is the main reason for your objection backwards compatibility? The name TextTrackCue by itself (without looking at history) doesn't imply whether it gets rendered on not - in fact, not even every VTTCue is/can be rendered. > I read http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Jul/0034.html but > I don't see any rationale against the proposal in comment 20, nor any > addressing of the concerns. The main reason I didn't introduce an UnprasedCue object is that I don't really see the advantage of creating a basically empty object, just to get a constructor: [Constructor(double startTime, double endTime, DOMString text)] interface UnparsedCue : TextTrackCue { }; -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 13:06:23 UTC