- From: Brendan Long <B.Long@cablelabs.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:16:19 +0000
- To: Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com>
- CC: "public-inbandtracks@w3.org" <public-inbandtracks@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1393967779.2578.41.camel@blong-desktop>
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 21:04 +0000, Bob Lund wrote: Yes, the inBandMetadataTrackDispatchType format is as defined in HTML5. What I mean is that I can't find anything saying what it should actually contain, so I was assuming it was the same as your proposal for the In-band Metadata Attribute. * Changing the HTML5 spec isn't a big deal because the TextTrack spec is in flux, and no one has implemented in-band metadata yet. Getting it right is more important than changing some attributes In what sense is my proposal not “getting it right”? What use case is not covered? The use-cases are covered by all three (see my code example below). I'm saying the fact that it's currently in the spec isn't that important right now because we're can change the spec. If you look at my pros/cons, I think using an ArrayBuffer attribute with a simpler name (metadata), or using DataCues in a metadata track are both better solutions. * Accessing the data isn't significantly easier with one or another: // In-band Metadata TextTrack binaryData = track.activeCues[0].data; // In-band Metadata Attribute (if it was an ArrayBuffer, not a string) binaryData = track.metadata; // inBandMetadataTrackDispatchType binaryData = base64DecToArr(track.inBandMetadataTrackDispatchType.split(" ")[1]) The only one that’s defined in W3C is inBandTrackMetadataDispatchType – my proposal. But none are implemented, so what matter is which one is best, not which one is currently (unimplemented) in the spec.
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2014 21:16:45 UTC