- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:37:40 +1000
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Cc: Ralph Giles <giles@mozilla.com>, public-texttracks@w3.org
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:39 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >> Message-Header style gives us another way to escape continued lines, >> which is to indent them with whitespace. This isn't any harder >> programmatically, but is easier to read. (You did it anyway in your >> example!) Might be more confusing to debug blank line escapes though. > > Yes. I also toyed with SMTP-like multi-line (no opening bracket, and the end is a period on a line by itself), but I don't think that's so easy to read, visually, and seems more error-prone. Few people read SMTP input; people do expect to read VTT files. I am guessing that for many cases, no escaping at all will be needed (']]' on a line by itself is pretty unlikely in CSS, as are lines starting with \, and stylesheets don't need to have blank lines). > >> >>> Examples: >>> >>> kind=captions examplecompany-test = for steve >>> initialTStimestamp=162642774 >>> stylesheetURL=http://www.example.com/vtt-plain.css stylesheet= >>> [[ p { font-size: 100px; } \ p::first-line { background: >>> url(http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/logo-REC) no-repeat; >>> font-size: 10px; span { border-left: solid 1em black; } } ]] >>> srclang=en-US label=Zeroes for King! >> >> My suggestion would look like: >> >> Kind: captions >> X-examplecompany-test: for steve >> Timestamp-offset: 162642774 >> StylesheetURL: http://www.example.com/vtt-plain.css >> Style: >> p { font-size: 100px; } >> >> p::first-line { >> background: url(http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/logo-REC) no-repeat; >> font-size: 10px; >> span { border-left: solid 1em black; } >> } >> srclang: en_US >> Label: 𝟎s for 王! >> > > what terminates the block, in your syntax? A line that starts without white space is not part of a block, according to RFC822 (it's called "folding"). I actually think it's more easily readable than the "[[ ... ]]" escape mechanism and does not require us to escape any further characters (such as if "]]" was required as part of the value of an attribute). Also, plenty of parsers already exist for RFC822 headers, e.g. http://docs.python.org/library/rfc822.html (python) http://php.net/manual/en/function.imap-rfc822-parse-headers.php (php) https://github.com/mikel/mail (ruby) http://www.courier-mta.org/maildrop/rfc822.html (C) and there are likely already libraries included in the browsers that support it. Finally, the conversion to a JavaScript Dictionary as proposed by Glenn would be trivial and not require removal of the "[[..]]" escape characters. So, I guess, overall I would probably prefer the RFC822 format. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 05:38:29 UTC