[whatwg] Timed tracks: feedback compendium

[Simon Pieters]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:09:24 +0200, Philip Jägenstedt <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