[whatwg] Timed tracks for <video>

Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 24 17:49:15 PDT 2010

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Paul Ellis <paul at ellisfoundation.com>wrote:

> 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.

Everyone I have spoken to in this ecosystem recommended against extending
SRT and recommended either picking one of the more capable existing formats
(in particular ASS or the new AS6 which is in development) or - if that
wasn't possible - recommended creating a proper format for the Web that can
then be supported in its own right. I think if we have a mixed set of .srt
files out there, some of which are old-style srt files (with line numbers,
without WebSRT markup) and some are WebSRT files with all the bells and
whistles and with additional external CSS files, we create such a mess for
that existing ecosystem that we won't find much love.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20100725/d14a6f90/attachment.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list