[whatwg] Fwd: Discussing WebSRT and alternatives/improvements

Anne van Kesteren annevk at opera.com
Wed Aug 11 00:04:27 PDT 2010

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:01 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer  
<silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a good approach and will reduce the need for breaking
> backwards-compatibility. In an xml-based format that need is 0, while  
> with a text format where the structure is ad-hoc, that need can never be  
> reduced to 0. That's what I am concerned about and that's why I think we  
> need a version identifier. If we end up never using/changing the version  
> identifier, the
> better so. But I'd much rather we have it now and can identify what
> specification a file adheres to than not being able to do so later.

XML is also text-based. ;-) But more seriously, if we ever need to make  
changes that would completely break backwards compatibility we should just  
use a new format rather than fit it into an existing one. That is the  
approach we have for most formats (and APIs) on the web (CSS, HTML,  
XMLHttpRequest) and so far a version identifier need (or need for a  
replacement) has not yet arisen.

Might be worth reading through some of:  

> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt  
> <philipj at opera.com>wrote:
>> That would make text/srt and text/websrt synonymous, which is kind of
>> pointless.
> No, it's only pointless if you are a browser vendor. For everyone else  
> it is a huge advantage to be able to choose between a guaranteed simple  
> format and a complex format with all the bells and whistles.

But it is not complex at all and everyone else supports most of the  
extensions the WebSRT format has.

Anne van Kesteren

More information about the whatwg mailing list