W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2013

Re: TextTrackCue discussions

From: Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 12:30:13 -0600
Message-ID: <522CC235.30109@brendanlong.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
On 09/07/2013 05:11 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com> wrote:
>> Would
>> you create an image format where the only way to access pixel data is a
>> giant if/else block to figure out what kind of image it is?
> Sure. That's what you do with image formats that the browser doesn't
> support and that you have to pull in via XHR.
But for image formats the browser /does/ understand, you would expect it
to present a consistent interface for the parts that are consistent (all
images should have height, width and pixel data).
>> I find it hard to believe that there's any cue format
>> that can't be represented in HTML, and I think to make things reasonable for
>> JS developers, we should force that format to always be available (although,
>> for efficiency, an implementation could choose to create it lazily of
>> course).
> Binary cue formats don't have a HTML representation, e.g. DVD subtitles.
<img src="data:image/bmp;base64,......" /> would work. It's not as nice
as getting text, but it's about as good as you can do for image-base

Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 18:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:46:05 UTC