- From: Paul Ellis <paul@ellisfoundation.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:57:57 -0700
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen at iki.fi> wrote: > On Jul 23, 2010, at 08:40, Ian Hickson wrote: > > - Keep implementation costs for standalone players low. > > I think this should be a non-goal. It seems to me that trying to cater for > non-browser user agents or non-Web uses in Web specs leads to bad Web specs. > I think by optimizing for standalone players WebSRT falls into one of the > common traps for Web specs. I think we should design for the Web (where the > rendering is done by browser engines). > I disagree that this should be a non-goal. Making it harder for content to be portable between the web and the non-web (standalone players, hardware devices, etc) will definitely stifle the adopting of WebSRT. There is already a significant ecosystem (players, creation tools, and content) around SRT that could easily be leveraged to make WebSRT successful. > Why karaoke and application-specific data? Those both seem like feature > creep compared to the core cases of subtitles and captions. > Completely agree. Even though subtitles/captions and karaoke are both essentially text synchronized to audio/video they are really completely different use cases. And Karaoke is a much less prominent use case on the web. Paul Ellis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100724/c7920217/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 24 July 2010 13:57:57 UTC