RE: TextTrackCue discussions

There is some in the CP. What specifically are you after?

-----Original Message-----
From: Silvia Pfeiffer [mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com] 
Sent: 24 July 2013 13:30
To: Sean Hayes
Cc: Glenn Adams; TTWG
Subject: Re: TextTrackCue discussions

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I don't see why the two parts would be in different documents; their functionality can be clearly labelled, and the APIs overlap so it makes sense to me to be in the same document. No I don't see this as the basis for inter-conversion.
>
> For the <track> model, TTML maps intermediate synchronic documents to the cue list API.
> The API includes the ability to:
>
> 1 Create a TTML track (has a DOM for empty document)
> 2 Create a TTML DOM either from an XML source document or ab-initio.
> 3 Get/Set the TTML DOM on the track object
> 4 Generate a TextTrackCueList corresponding to the loaded TTML DOM 
> (i.e. populate the cues attribute)
> 5 Generate a TTML DOM from the TextTrackCueList.
> 6 Append a newly created cue to the list of cues.
> 7 Add the track to the video list of tracks.
>
> If all you are interested in is tracks and cues, you can just use 1, 5, 6 & 7.
> If you want to use the features of TTML you can use 1, 2.3 & 4 & 7.
> If you want to preserve a list of cues as TTML you can use 5.
>
> The change I was contemplating was to eliminate the TTMLCueXX objects so that the getCueAsXml() method would simply return an untyped DOM Element, and you would use the tagName to figure out what it was. This might make it more difficult to support #6, and therefore possibly make #5 redundant.
>

Hmmm...

Could you write some example code that a JavaScript developer would use to interact with all this?

Thanks,
Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 14:21:05 UTC