- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:18:09 +0200
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:09:24 +0200, Philip J?genstedt <philipj at opera.com> wrote: >> Using <!-- --> is a bad idea since the WebSRT syntax already uses -->. >> I don't see the need for multiline comments. > > Right. If we must have comments I think I'd prefer /* ... */ since both > CSS and JavaScript have it, and I can't see that single-line comments > will be easier from a parser perspective. Line comments seem better from a compat perspective (you wouldn't get commented out stuff appear as cues in legacy parsers). >>>> Anyway, I agree that at least a magic header like "WebSRT" is needed >>>> because >>>> of the horrors of legacy SRT parsing. >> >> I don't see why we can't just consume the legacy and support it in >> WebSRT. Part of the point with WebSRT is to support the legacy. If we >> don't want to support the legacy, then the format can be made a lot >> cleaner. > > Did you read > <http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2010-October/028799.html> > and look at <http://ale5000.altervista.org/subtitles.htm>? Yes. > Do you think it's a good idea to make WebSRT an extension of ale5000-SRT? Yes. :-) We could remove stuff from ale5000-SRT if there isn't interop already and the relevant vendors agree to remove it from their impls. > My opinion is that it's not a very good idea, which of course we can > simplify some aspects of the format. For example, we don't need to allow > both , and . as the millisecond separator, and the time parsing in > general can be made more sane. Do you think browsers will support vanilla SRT (i.e. ale5000-SRT) as well? -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 22 October 2010 04:18:09 UTC