- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 21:13:55 +1000
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.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 Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:11 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> 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? >> >> ArrayBuffer .data works for me. >> Should we keep .text as well, because converting from ArrayBuffer to >> String can be inefficient, see >> http://updates.html5rocks.com/2012/06/How-to-convert-ArrayBuffer-to-and-from-String >> ? > > What would the text property contain when the browser doesn't know the > encoding? Return an empty string. That can also be used by the JS dev to know that they need to look at the .data ArrayBuffer. > I think it's probably simplest to only expose a single > ArrayBuffer property, and add convenience properties only as the need > becomes apparent. What do you mean? All of the examples that we have from MPEG-4 are text-based, so it's the 90% use case and the need for a convenience property seems clear. Silvia.
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 11:14:43 UTC