- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 17:59:00 +1000
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer >>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> UnparsedCue can be created by JS and the JS could try to add it to a >>>> track that has a @kind=captions. >>> >>> Why do we need to allow scripts to create UnparsedCue at all? That >>> will require some new API surface that isn't needed to solve the >>> original use case -- in-band metadata tracks which aren't just a >>> special-case of a captioning format. >> >> It also allows JS devs to create @kind=metadata cues without having to >> decide to use a more specific format such as WebVTT. > > Given that UnparsedCue would be a strict subset of VTTCue, that > doesn't sound at all worth adding APIs for. It avoids developer confusion, which is sufficient reason for me. Here's another use case: when a browser exposes in-band text tracks through a @kind=metadata TextTrack, this allows developers to make corrections to the list of cues - add cues if necessary to e.g. fill gaps. Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 07:59:46 UTC