- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 16:25:00 +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>
Actually, what character do we want to introduce for explicit line breaks now? Is <br> the best approach? Or should it be "\n"? I think <br> makes the most sense, since we have other markup in this format, too. Thoughts? Cheers, Silvia. On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Saturday, 21 April 2012 06:27:40 UTC