W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2010

[whatwg] WebSRT feedback

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 00:37:06 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTikeS=Gw7FOvnxYTDA+nh-3WrZxHo-fqt+vFkMXp@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Philip J?genstedt <philipj at opera.com>wrote:

> Styling hooks were requested. If we only have the predefined tags (i, b,
> ...) and voices, these will most certainly be abused, e.g. resulting in <i>
> being used where italics isn't wanted or <v Foo> being used just for
> styling, breaking the accessibility value it has.
> As an aside, the idea of using an HTML parser for the cue text wasn't very
> popular.

I believe that this feedback was provided by a person representing the deaf
or hard-of-hearing community and not the subtitling community. In particular
at FOMS I heard the opposite opinion.


> * The current syntax looks like XML or HTML but has very different parsing.
> Voices like <narrator> don't create nodes at all and for tags like <i> the
> paser has a whitelist and also special rules for inserting <rt>. Unless
> there are strong reasons for this, then for simplicity and forward
> compatibility, I'd much rather have the parser create an actual DOM (not a
> tree of "WebSRT Node Object") that reflects the input. If we also support
> attributes then people who actually want to use their (silly) <font
> color=red> tags can do so with CSS. This could also work as styling hooks.
> Obviously, a WebSRT parser should create elements in another namespace, we
> don't want e.g. <img> to work inside cues.

I still believe that in particular <img> and <a> are very important tags to

That was all great feedback, btw!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20101007/6a53fa1b/attachment.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 6 October 2010 21:37:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:27 UTC