On 11 Dec 2013 07:56, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:34 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:36 , Glenn Adams <glenn@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> > But not as well as you could it would seem: on Chrome, WebVTT is simply translated to cues referring to a CSS styled HTML fragment. Why not simple define an HTMLCue, and dispense entirely with VTTCue and the WebVTT parser. The WebVTT could be translated to a sequence of HTML cues on the server or using client JS. >> > >> >> This is probably stating the obvious, but you asked. >> >> for at least two reasons: >> >> * we want this to be only one of many possible implementation choice >> and >> * we want there to be a simple expression of the timed cues that is not dependent on an implementation choice > > > Which would require the "simple expression" to be a semantic/stylistic superset of formats, which HTML/CSS is, but WebVTT isn't. Allowing all of html and css in cues is madness. Why did ttml not do that either? Authors of captions need something that works for the use case, ie. captioning, and not for publishing. If you want all of html+CSS, you don't need a new format - you just write a web page. Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 21:09:05 UTC