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

Re: TextTrackCue discussions

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 07:28:27 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dqZhsQ0dPW2BN6+8EdBNSsPCcULtj+KGrWSU0DjgB1MQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com>
Cc: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
BTW, I notice the Web&TV IG has created a List of Metadata
Formats<http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Media_APIs/Metadata_Formats>.
>From a cursory review, it looks like most are XML based. Not sure how many
of these have a defined in-band binding.


On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Brendan Long <self@brendanlong.com> wrote:

>  On 09/18/2013 08:11 AM, Philip J├Ągenstedt wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> It seems like exposing the binary directly is a better solution, since we
> know it will be needed (for cues with unknown encoding, and for cues that
> don't have a text representation, like CEA708). I'd rather not use base64
> encoding, since it adds what seems to be unnecessary complexity.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 13:29:18 UTC

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