Re: TextTrackCue discussions

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.