Re: WebVTT spec

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> > >
> > > A new draft document is now at 
> > > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/text-tracks/raw-file/default/webvtt/webvtt.html 
> >
> > Is this the source file? I'm confused. With scripting disabled, all 
> > the styles, cross-references, etc, seem to stop working. Many elements 
> > are missing auto-generated IDs, <a> elements without href=""s abound, 
> > etc.
> 
> Yes, it's the source file.
> 
> ReSpec uses the source file and transforms it - it does everything in 
> JavaScript. So, if you disable scripting, you get none of the goodness, 
> including everything that you list above. It's how it works.

Wow, that sounds terrible. Can we not use a statically generated form?

Requiring that JavaScript be enabled to make use of _specs_, which are 
frequently printed, seems a bit excessive. I'm all for providing 
additional interactive features (e.g. the <dfn> magic in the WHATWG 
specs), but requiring that JS be used to view the spec seems really bad.


> > > > > Also you're referencing a version of HTML with all kinds of 
> > > > > errors,
> > >
> > > Fixed. I didn't notice I linked to the 5.0 spec - thanks!
> >
> > It still links to a w3.org version of the spec (a TR/ version at that, 
> > which is even worse). Why don't we link to the same version we linked 
> > to before? It's more up to date and has fewer mistakes in it.
> 
> This is in preparation for going through the W3C processes, which I'm 
> sure will require us to point to the W3C spec.

Such a process, if one exists (which doesn't seem to be the case), or if 
one is artificially requested by people (which does seem possible), should 
be pushed back by the WG when it happens -- which it need not, since, at 
least IMHO, the whole thing of doing a WG is an unnecessary mistake. This, 
however, is a CG, where the issue is moot, since we don't have that problem.


> I've, however, added the WHATWG spec as well, because it is where it was 
> originally started, so that's just fair.

Having both means that when they conflict, implementors won't know which 
to refer to.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 00:54:52 UTC