- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:48:07 +1000
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
Yeah, we'll need some clever conversion tools. Silvia. On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > I strongly support spec'ing/implementing balanced line wrapping a the > default for WebVTT. As for line-wrapping, I'm inclined to agree that > requiring <br> will have long-term benefits and will not object to it. > However, I expect we will initially also see some SRT content ported to > WebVTT without manual intervention, causing some cues like this to end up on > a single line: > > 00:32.000 --> 00:35.000 > - What should we do? > - Let's go shopping! > > Philip > > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:52:08 +0200, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > >> OK, I am cool. I was just leaning towards simplicity, but these are good >> arguments. Others? >> >> >> On Apr 18, 2012, at 22:54 , Glenn Maynard wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:23 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >>> I think some have argued that author line-breaks should not be permitted >>> or possible in the content itself. >>> >>> (I don't think anyone is arguing that.) >>> >>> We're not writing paragraphs, such as in HTML, where inserting line >>> breaks in the source is sometimes desirable to make the source readable, and >>> then they need converting to whitespace. Cues need to be 'short'. >>> >>> So I am not sure we need (a), which means we don't need (b), which means, >>> for me, that (c) is fine; if you author a line-break, you meant it. >>> >>> Again, the problem with this is that it will result in a huge number of >>> caption files being manually word wrapped. It will cause people to >>> hand-wrap captions where there's no need for it, which will make many WebVTT >>> files break when viewed in larger fonts than the author happened to be >>> using. Using explicit <br> will make it clear to authors that, like HTML, >>> you should usually be leaving wrapping to the UA and only use <br> when you >>> explicitly need a break for reasons other than word-wrapping. >>> >>> I'm pretty confident in this prediction; many VTT users are going to be >>> previous SRT users. With SRT you *were* required to do word wrapping >>> yourself, which I think is obviously unacceptable on the Web, where you can >>> never make hard assumptions about users' font sizes (or other aspects of >>> font rendering). >>> >>> We can fix this easily now, by making the intuitive usage of the format >>> the correct one, or we can give ourselves headaches trying to convince >>> people to stop doing things incorrectly later (which doesn't work on the >>> Web). >>> >>> -- >>> Glenn Maynard >>> >> >> David Singer >> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. >> > > > -- > Philip Jägenstedt > Core Developer > Opera Software
Received on Friday, 20 April 2012 06:49:02 UTC