- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:26:39 +1000
- To: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, public-texttracks@w3.org
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: > Hi Silvia, > > Le 7/27/2012 12:59 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer a écrit : > >> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Cyril Concolato >> <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: >>>> >>>> No, not quite. Everything until the first empty line is regarded as >>>> the header. >>> >>> I don't understand. The syntax (http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/#syntax) >>> says >>> that the "WEBVTT" string can optionally be followed by "either a U+0020 >>> SPACE character or a U+0009 CHARACTER TABULATION (tab) character followed >>> by >>> any number of characters that are not U+000A LINE FEED (LF) or U+000D >>> CARRIAGE RETURN (CR) characters.". Since it says "that are not LF or CR" >>> you >>> can't have text on another line. The line starting with "WEBVTT" must be >>> followed by an empty line. This seems to be also the interpretation of >>> Anne's validator, which says "no blank line after the signature". But >>> this >>> does not change the fact that the header, indeed, may carry interesting >>> things. >> >> That's the Syntax definition. In step 11 in the parser, thought it says: >> http://dev.w3.org/html5/webvtt/#parsing >> >> "Header: Collect a sequence of characters that are not U+000A LINE >> FEED (LF) characters. Let line be those characters, if any." >> >> The way I read this is that while we haven't defined in the Syntax >> that there should be a header, the parser allows putting extra >> characters beyond the identifier line and skips everything until it >> finds the two line terminators it requires (i.e. the empty line). > > So although the file would be syntactically invalid, it would be acceptable > to the parser. Urgh! Not at all. See Glenn's answer: it's about extensibility. >>> Right. So what about the Random Access Point problem that I mentionned in >>> a >>> my previous email? Don't you think it should possible to rewrite any >>> WebVTT >>> file such that any (or some) cue doesn't need information from previous >>> cues >>> to be processed? Just like you can re-encode a video to have all (or >>> some) >>> frames to be an I frame? >> >> You can already do that. "Random access" for video or audio also >> doesn't mean that you can get to any time point that you like. You can >> always only get to the resolution of the data that you're looking at. >> E.g. if you seek to a time position that lies exactly in the middle of >> two video frames, what are you going to rewrite when you re-encode it? >> Do the same for WebVTT. > > I've never said that ""Random access" for video or audio [...] mean that you > can get to any time point that you like". I'm saying that for video and > audio you can always (at the cost of bitrate) reencode a file such that all > frames are I-frames (or equivalent). To my understanding, this is not > possible for WebVTT and I think that's a problem. There's no reason it wouldn't be possible with WebVTT. You jump to a time point, you take all the cues that are active at that time point and drop all the ones before that and you have exactly what you're after. That's "re-encoding" the WebVTT way - even simpler than what you have to do for video or audio. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2012 07:27:27 UTC