[whatwg] Timed tracks: feedback compendium
philipj at opera.com
Tue Jan 4 01:28:03 PST 2011
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:56:56 +0100, Simon Pieters <simonp at opera.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:57:50 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt
> <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
>>> 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>?
Yes, that would be another solution.
More information about the whatwg