- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:11:41 +0200
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer >> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> It turns out I'm not up to date with what the spec says. addCue and >> removeCue are now on the TextTrack interface and take a TextTrackCue, >> whereas there used to be a function which created *and* added a cue. I >> thought we'd need a new such function, but it's only a question of >> whether or not UnparsedCue has a constructor. >> >> I would prefer if UnparsedCue was only ever used for in-band metadata >> tracks of an unknown kind, but if browsers are going to expose the >> UnparsedCue interface anyway, then exposing a constructor by that same >> makes no difference, and would indeed be more consistent. > > > Would it be better to call this interface RawCue or RawTextCue, so that it > doesn't necessarily imply that it is not parsed? This would be useful to > permit a rendered cue interface type (that exposes getCueAsHTML) to inherit > from Raw{Text}Cue in order to provide the text attribute. > > I have specified a RawTTMLCue to serve this function (as a base interface > for TTMLCue) in [1]. Hmm, this makes we wonder what the property for accessing the data is supposed to be. If it's a string, then it requires that the UA at least know what the encoding of the text is, which seems like it might not be true. RawCue and exposing the data as a typed array .data property seems OK to me. The other option is to base64-encode cues which are of an unknown encoding, I guess? Philip
Received on Wednesday, 18 September 2013 14:12:09 UTC