- From: Craig S. Kiessling <craig@csknet.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:04:59 -0500
Can someone please let me know how to unsubscribe? Many thanks. Sincerely, Craig S. Kiessling www.PathsAtlanta.org <http://www.pathsatlanta.org> - Martial Arts & More www.CSKnet.net <http://www.csknet.net> - SEO & More /www.AtlantaMahjong.com <http://www.atlantamahjong.com> - The Mahjong Source in Atlanta Connect with Me http://www.csknet.net/Contact/ On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp at opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:57:50 +0100, Philip J?genstedt <philipj at opera.com> > wrote: > > To use a different style for the cues that are sung together, so that >>>> you know when it's your turn to sing. >>>> >>> >>> It's not clear whether multiple voices is really necessary. Can't you >>> just >>> do (using the new syntax): >>> >>> 00:01.000 --> 00:02.000 >>> <v Bob> Speaker 1 >>> 00:03.000 --> 00:04.000 >>> <v Jim> Speaker 2 >>> 00:05.000 --> 00:06.000 >>> <v Bob and Jim> Speaker 1+2 >>> >>> ...where "Bob and Jim" is a third name? >>> >> >> Sure, one could, but the new syntax/parsing also allows <v Bob><v Jim> >> Speaker 1+2, which is what I requested. >> >> Using this syntax, I would expect some confusion when you omit the closing >> </v>, when it's *not* a cue spoken by two voices at the same time, such as: >> >> <v Jim>- Boo! >> <v Bob>- Gah! >> >> Gah! is spoken by both Jim and Bob, but that was likely not intended. If >> this causes confusion, we should make validators warn about multiple voices >> with with no closing </v>. >> > > Or we can say that nesting cues is not important enough to be supported, > and make <v> imply </v>? > > -- > Simon Pieters > Opera Software > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20110103/11b96511/attachment.htm>
Received on Monday, 3 January 2011 10:04:59 UTC