- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:44:52 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- cc: public-texttracks@w3.org
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:33:48 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Simon Pieters wrote: > > > > > > Before I brought up that there was a mismatch between the text/vtt > > > registration's "WebVTT files all begin with one of the following > > > byte sequences:" and the WebVTT parser's handling of the signature. > > > Hixie made a change to the parser to address it, but they still > > > don't match. > > > > > > Consider a file that contains "WEBVTT foo" and no LFs. It matches > > > the text/vtt's registration, but the parser rejects it in step 9, > > > because there's no LF. > > > > > > I think the parser step 5 should be changed to collect characters > > > that are not LF, space or tab, and then check that the collected > > > characters are "WEBVTT", and then if the next character is space or > > > tab, skip characters that are not LF, and remove step 9. > > > > Doesn't really matter, surely. I mean, the file is empty. > > I think it matters enough to file the bug and change our tests and impl > (which we have already done). Is the difference only whether onload fires vs onerror? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2012 16:45:20 UTC