Re: TextTrackCue discussions

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Jerry Smith (WINDOWS)
> <jdsmith@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Is there an assumption that thin or thick TextTrackCues would be for
> text only representations?  The existing cue definition (not the newer
> drafts) can adequately source styled cues and works with getCueAsHTML on
> separate WebVTT or TTML caption files.  For compatibility reasons, these
> should continue to work.
> >
> > The use of format specific cue objects like VTTCue may allow tuned
> attributes for a specific format, but they also fragment the programming
> model and make it more difficult for websites to support content with mixed
> caption formats, do they not?
> >
> > I have had some side discussions with Silvia and others about the
> overarching goals of this revision.  Some have replied that it is to focus
> format specific syntax and features on objects that clearly have a format
> specific intent.  That would seem predicated on an assumption that a format
> agnostic solution, usually the desired goal for web specifications, is not
> possible.  Do we agree that is the case?
>
> What would a format agnostic solution be? It seems like you would have
> to pick one rendering model and require everything to use it. I would
> be fine with only the old TextTrackCue and the WebVTT rendering model,
> but that wasn't popular, hence the recent spec changes. I still don't
> know if there are any browser vendors who really plan support for any
> rendering model other than WebVTT.
>

I can't predict if it will be accepted or shipped, by I'm preparing a patch
that would add native TTML support to Blink. Once TTMLCue is defined along
with a standard HTML/CSS mapping, I wouldn't be surprised if IE beings to
make use of the latter. I expect that demand for native TTML support will
increase.

Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 07:09:17 UTC