Re: TextTrackCue discussions

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:57:35 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, we've come all the way round back to what I proposed in
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2013Aug/0152.html ,
>> but with s/GenericCue/UnparsedCue/  and VTTCue not inheriting from
>> UnparsedCue.
>>
>> It seems that we now have agreement on this from several people
>> including voices from Opera, Mozilla, and Chrome, but with concerns
>> raised from Apple and Microsoft.
>>
>>
>> Here are some remaining open issues from the discussion:
>>
>> * what is the browser supposed to do for a UnparsedCue on a track with
>> @kind="captions" ?
>
>
> Just expose it to scripts?

That means changing the semantics of what these kinds mean.
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/embedded-content-0.html#attr-track-kind
says captions & subtitles are overlaid on the video, descriptions are
synthesized as audio, and chapters are displayed as lists, none of
which would apply to UnparsedCue.

Also, as currently specified, if a UnparsedCue was of @kind=captions
and had a @default attribute, it could override an actual TextTrack
that had renderable cues.

I think the implications of UnparsedCue for @kind != metadata are too
far-reaching.

I suggest we make it an error to create UnparsedCue for anything but a
@kind=metadata TextTrack.


>> * could / should we enforce that UnparsedCue is always the
>> TextTrackCue interface for @kind="metadata" ?
>
>
> I don't think we should. For WebVTT, one might want a metadata track to
> download but not render, and still want to use the WebVTT-specific stuff
> (e.g. the cue settings).

Hmm...
Are you aware of a use case for WebVTT metadata cues where the cue
settings would be useful?


Silvia.

Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 11:30:32 UTC