Re: WebVTT spec

Also a few other things:

* I'd leave the text attribute and getCueAsHTML() function on the
TextTrackCue and not move them to the WebVTTCue object, because I think
they are a generic function for all text track types.

* nit: you left a comment about "Registration of media type text/cues"
instead of text/vtt

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
> I'm going through your changes right now.
>
> I've just stumbled across this paragraph in addTextTrack():
>
>     <p>Initially, the <span>text track list of cues</span> is not
> associated with any <span>rules
>     for updating the text track rendering</span>. When a <span>text track
> cue</span> is added to it,
>     the <span>text track list of cues</span> has its rules permanently set
> accordingly.</p>
>
> I suggest setting the default "rules for updating the text track
> rendering" to the WebVTT rules. This avoids uncertainty when creating a new
> TextTrack and it is backwards compatible. We may then need an extra
> optional parameter on addTextTRack() to change the assoicated rules, e.g.
> textTrack = media . addTextTrack<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#dom-media-addtexttrack>
> ( kind [, label [, language [, format ] ] )
>
> The format parameter allows specification of the format in which the
> TextTrackCues are expected. "text/vtt" is one such format and makes the
> "rules for updating the text track rendering" be the "rules for updating
> the display of WebVTT text tracks".
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'm curious: what's the idea behind the "cues in isolation" part? What
>>> > would they be used for and how should they be rendered?
>>>
>>> It's fixing this bug:
>>>
>>>    https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15620
>>>
>>
>> I guess I'll understand when I do a proper review...
>>
>>
>> > Other that this I think it looks good from my first cursory glance. I'll
>>> > also have to do a proper review, also from the HTML spec POV, but both
>>> > will go hand in hand.
>>> >
>>> > I'll let you know when I'm set up to take this over. I'll work through
>>> > the publishing pipeline with Robin and Mike. I agree that a stage is
>>> the
>>> > first step.
>>>
>>> Sounds good. I put all the markup for WebVTT together in one place in the
>>> spec source so it should be pretty easy to extract now.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks! (It's not that hard to find with the markers in place, but still.)
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Mike also asked me to move to using ReSpec, so I will copy the WebVTT
>>> > spec out of the source file and get that going first.
>>>
>>> If you do move to respec, please avoid the temptation to break the spec
>>> the way most respec API specs seem to (not defining APIs with RFC2119
>>> terms, and so forth)...
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'll try to stay true to your style. Do call me out when I get it wrong.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Silvia.
>>
>
>