- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 08:43:15 +1000
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de>wrote: > On 12.08.2010 10:09, Philip J?genstedt wrote: > >> ... >> >> The core "problem" is that WebSRT is far too compatible with existing SRT >> usage. Regardless of the file extension and MIME type used, it's quite >> improbable that anyone will have different parsers for the same format. Once >> media players have been forced to handle the extra markup in WebSRT (e.g. by >> ignoring it, as many already do) the two formats will be the same, and using >> WebSRT markup in .srt files will just work, so that's what people will do. >> We may avoid being seen as arrogant format-hijackers, but the end result is >> two extensions and two different MIME types that mean exactly the same >> thing. >> > > ... > > (just observing...) > > So when something that used to be plain text now carries markup, what's the > compatibility story for plain text that happens to contain markup > characters, such as "<", ">" or "&"? > > Best regards, Julian > I assume you mean: what happens to text that contains such characters? In most SRT systems, such stuff will just be displayed verbatim. Cheers, Silvia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100818/65b2731d/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 15:43:15 UTC