On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote: > OK, a bit more clarification: > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Pierre-Anthony Lemieux > <pal@sandflow.com> wrote: > > Ah. I was not attempting to be exhaustive. Second attempt below. > > > > TTML document ---JS?---> WebVTT document -----------> UA [TTML is > > converted to WebVTT (using JS?), which the browser renders] > > That conversion would typically not be done in JS, but by any program. > Can even be offline. If you want to render TTML in the browser, you > would likely not take this path, but the one below. > > > TTML document ----JS----> sequence of calls to TextTrack API [JS is > > parsing TTML and constructing cues] > > JS would also need to do the formatting (in CSS) and on-screen positioning. > > > TTML document ---------> UA [UA renders TTML natively] > > > > I had assumed that the third was already in scope, as you pointed out > earlier. > > Sure can be, but I've thus far only had indications from MS to > implement it in IE. All other browser vendors I have spoken with have > been rejective of supporting a second format. As I said: that may > change and it's just a statement on current status. > I have seen no formal statement rejecting support for TTML from any UA vendor. That there are some individuals who would prefer not to have two formats does not mean that the UA vendor it the community it represents has concluded that is a fixed or good decision. Continuing to recite the negative positions of particular individuals as decisions of those communities does not seem to help create an environment where we can focus on legitimate support for both formats.
Received on Friday, 17 May 2013 03:44:24 UTC