- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 21:06:58 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21851 --- Comment #19 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> --- (In reply to comment #11) > > It is possible to have an implementation in a UA that parses timed tracks > and exposes cues, but the UA has no implementation for how to further parse > the cue content. This has nothing to do with parsing the cue content. It's about parsing the cues. In an implementation such as you describe, you'd still have a new Cue interface, for whatever text track format you're dealing with. > It would, of course, be better to have a dedicated API for TTMLCue or > SCC708Cue, but if there is no further data than just the cue content, > TextTrackCue is entirely sufficient if it has a .content (or .text) API. That's really poor API design. If you have a potential hierarchy of interfaces, and some leafs of this hierarchy would only have one or two APIs, you don't therefore not bother to create the leaves and instead put the APIs on the abstract common ancestor. You only put things on the abstract common ancestor if they apply to _every_ descendant interface. There's no harm in having a "TTMLCue" interface that has a .text API. Or alternatively, in having an interface that inherits from the abstract TextTrackCue and that is inherited by WebVTTCue, which can then be used for those formats where the UA essentially just has a subset of WebVTT (though that would be inferior to having separate leaf interfaces, since you'd want each one to have its own rendering rules, and it'd be confusing to have a single interface used for multiple different rendering rules). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 21:07:04 UTC