- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 09:51:18 +0200
- To: "Glenn Maynard" <glenn@zewt.org>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>, public-texttracks <public-texttracks@w3.org>
On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 00:12:36 +0200, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> How does this represent blank lines? Editing software should allow >> people >>> to paste in CSS, and when they come back to it later, show the original >>> text they entered in its original format, without blank lines stripped. >>> >> >> The proposed pipe-dot-backslash-and-entity-**escaped syntax doesn't >> handle that, either, AFAICT. It requires that you change all blank >> lines to >> lines with a backslash (or remove the blank lines). In the syntax >> above, it >> would require you to remove all blank lines. > > > Sure it does. The editor's parser removes them, and the code that saves > the file adds them; editing software wouldn't show the backslash escapes. > If you paste in CSS, then reload the file from disk and copy it back out, > you'll get the exact same text you pasted in, ease-of-reading newlines > and > all. Well, if we're reasoning about software allows editing an arbitrary style sheet and hides the underlying syntax from the user, the editor can serialize the style sheet as a data: URL and put it in an @import. The raw syntax should be easy to use and learn for people who hand-author with the raw syntax. > I don't object to using a blank line as a terminator instead of a period, > as long as it doesn't place odd restrictions on the contents of the > string > (such as "no blank lines" or "no -->"). You can represent those in a data: URL. > It's not 100% compatible with the > current parser, Why not? > which the format we're proposing is intended to be, but if > it's not too late to change the parser in that way then that's fine. > Backslash--or whatever--escapes could easily be used in this scheme too. > It would be needed in two situations instead of three, since "." wouldn't > need escaping (only blank lines and lines starting with the escape > character itself would need it). I'd prefer if there wasn't any escaping at all. >>> I believe the point of the "-->" special case (parser step 14) is to >>> tolerate when people omit the post-header blank line, eg. >>> >>> WEBVTT >>> 00.000 --> 05.000 >>> ... >>> >> >> It was added to the spec because I found by researching SRT that people >> often forget a blank line *between* cues. It has not been shown that the >> above pattern is a common one (since SRT doesn't have a header). I can >> imagine that the above will be common for WebVTT, though. It doesn't >> necessarily follow that it will be common to forget a blank line >> between a >> multiline metadata value and the following cue. > > > Step 14 executes before cues, not between them. Yes, it was added everywhere in the parser for consistency, I believe. > Anyway, again, I'd be > happy if that step was changed so it doesn't trigger in the middle of a > header, which I think would eliminate the need for escaping "-->" > within > header data. Step 14 as it is right now is going to give "-->" headaches > to *anything* placed before cues. I'm OK with that. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Sunday, 2 September 2012 07:52:05 UTC