- From: Frank Olivier <Frank.Olivier@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 23:52:10 +0000
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Wrt the required header - I'll get that fixed up in our engine ASAP. I'd love to see the test suite, if there is one... Thanks Frank -----Original Message----- From: Simon Pieters [mailto:simonp@opera.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:06 AM To: public-texttracks@w3.org; Silvia Pfeiffer Subject: Re: Implementation Status [via Web Media Text Tracks Community Group] On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 07:42:27 +0100, W3C Community Development Team <team-community-process@w3.org> wrote: > I recently did a comparison of the implementation status of WebVTT > features in the major browsers. > You can find it here: http://www.webvtt.org/ Nice. I'm a bit surprised IE implements the old "WEBVTT FILE" header. Could you also test Opera 12 (Presto)? From memory, I think its support is something like: Required Header WEBVTT File MIME Type sniffing Menu in video controls to select tracks JavaScript TextTrack API ✔ Rendering of text-only captions & subtitles ✔ Cue styling with ::cue and ::cue() ✔ Cue markup incl. Timestamps ✔ (<ruby> is rendered inline) Vertical Cue setting Line, Align, Position, Size Cue settings ✔ Comments (NOTE) ✔ Regions Rendering of text descriptions Rendering of chapters It's not clear to me what it means for an implementation to support "Comments (NOTE)" since it falls out of the parsing requirements to discard them even before NOTE was in the spec. How do you determine if a feature is "✔" or "✔ (buggy)" or ""? Are you running a testsuite? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2015 23:52:40 UTC