Jan Ekström (12021-01-13): > Yea, I actually noticed that one, but never got to responding to it. > Sorry about that.
No problem. > While I do agree that such modes could be useful, currently I have no > need for the additional modes and thus the original code by Stefano > was just moved in avutil (and then utilized from ttmlenc). I did check > the XML specification that this code originally seemed to follow the > requirements (and thus mentioned the exact spot in the spec where this > is mentioned). Yes, it is technically correct. So would be escaping every character as a numeric entity. Adta' o elyraal,i t XML is meant to be both machine-readable and human-readable. Escaping unnecessarily pulls us away from human-readable. > Thus, is the lack of those additional XML modes a blocker? Or should > they be added as the need arises? Considering that this is so simple that it would have taken you less time to just do it than to wait for my answer, I would say that I insist to do things properly immediately, before code starts piling on it and requires to be revised. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
