On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:52:26 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> Why wouldn't it always be a superior solution for all parties to do
> the
> following:
> 1) Make sure WebSRT never requires processing that'd require
> rendering
> a substantial body of legacy .srt content in a broken way. (This
> wou
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:40:08 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
At this point, what is your recommendation? The following ideas have
been
on the table:
* Change the file extension to something other than .srt.
I don't have an opinion, browsers ignore the file extension anyway.
Yes, I think
> > Why wouldn't it always be a superior solution for all parties to do
> > the
> > following:
> > 1) Make sure WebSRT never requires processing that'd require
> > rendering
> > a substantial body of legacy .srt content in a broken way. (This
> > would
> > require supporting non-UTF-8 encodings b
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:58:29 +0200, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
You misunderstand my intent. I am by no means suggesting that no
WebSRT
content is treated as SRT by any application. All I am asking for is a
different file extension and a different mime type and possibly a
magic
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> You misunderstand my intent. I am by no means suggesting that no
> WebSRT
> content is treated as SRT by any application. All I am asking for is a
> different file extension and a different mime type and possibly a
> magic
> identifier such that *authoring* applications (an
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:28:49 +0200, Chris Double
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Eric Carlson
wrote:
FWIW, I agree with Silvia that a new file extension and MIME type make
sense.
I also think that a new file extension and MIME type is the way to go.
Would Firefox / Safari support
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Eric Carlson wrote:
>
> FWIW, I agree with Silvia that a new file extension and MIME type make
> sense.
I also think that a new file extension and MIME type is the way to go.
Chris.
--
http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
> The main reason to care about the MIME type is some kind of "doing the right
> thing" by not letting people get away with misconfigured servers. Sometimes
> I feel it's just a waste of everyone's time though, it would generally be
> les
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> It's actually easier for a browser to ignore the MIME type than it is to be
> strict about it, at least when the format is easily identified by sniffing
> (sniffing code is needed anyway for local files).
Firefox (in the case of video) u
On Aug 25, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
> The results are hardly consistent, but at least one player exist for which
> it's not enough to change the file extension and add a header. If we want to
> make sure that no
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:39:00 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>>
> The question, then, is if parsers that handle the mentioned markup also
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:39:00 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
The question, then, is if parsers that handle the mentioned markup
also
ignore <1>, and . I haven't tested it, but I assume that
some
will ignore it and some won't.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:16:56 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:32:21 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
>>> silviapfeiff...@g
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:16:56 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:32:21 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>wrote:
Aside: WebSRT can't
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:32:21 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>> Aside: WebSRT can't contain binary data, only UTF-8 encoded text.
>>>
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:32:21 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
Aside: WebSRT can't contain binary data, only UTF-8 encoded text.
It sure can. Just base-64 encode it. I'm not saying it's a good thing,
but
if somebody really has
On 24.08.2010 04:32, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
...
P.S. I do wonder if anyone other than us is still following this thread. ;-)
> ...
I do. It seems that embrace & extend is somewhat unfriendly unless the
original SRT community is ok with it. If it's not, then make sure that
the formats can be d
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:32:49 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:42:04 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
>>> silviapfeiff...@
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:32:49 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:42:04 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>wrote:
Yeah, so the only co
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:42:04 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, so the only conforming solution is probably to use CSS3
>> transition
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:42:04 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:11:55 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
>wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010
On 18.08.2010 00:43, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Julian Reschke mailto:julian.resc...@gmx.de>> wrote:
On 12.08.2010 10:09, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
...
The core "problem" is that WebSRT is far too compatible with
existing SRT usage. Regar
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 12.08.2010 10:09, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> The core "problem" is that WebSRT is far too compatible with existing SRT
>> usage. Regardless of the file extension and MIME type used, it's quite
>> improbable that anyone will h
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:11:55 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:38:32 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
>>> silviapfeiff...@g
On 12.08.2010 10:09, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
...
The core "problem" is that WebSRT is far too compatible with existing SRT
usage. Regardless of the file extension and MIME type used, it's quite improbable that
anyone will have different parsers for the same format. Once media players have been
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 02:11:55 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:38:32 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:38:32 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:01 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
>>> silviapfeiff...@
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:38:32 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:01 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>wrote:
I have checked the p
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:09:34 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> HTML and CSS have predefined structures within which their languages grow
>> and are able to grow. WebSRT has newlines to structure the format
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:09:34 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
HTML and CSS have predefined structures within which their languages grow
and are able to grow. WebSRT has newlines to structure the format, which
is clearly not very useful for extensibility. No matter how we turn
this, the xml bac
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:01 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>> I have checked the parse spec and
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/c
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:35:30 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>
>>> While players are transitioning to WebSRT they will ensure that they do
>
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:01 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:34:02 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
>wrote:
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 13:35:30 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
While players are transitioning to WebSRT they will ensure that they do
not break with future versions of the format.
That's impossible, since we do not know what future ve
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:30:23 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>
>
> Also, I can see that structured formats with a
>> clear path for how ext
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:30:23 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Anne van Kesteren
wrote:
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
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:01 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@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
>>
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:01 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
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
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:34:02 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Philip Jägenstedt > >wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:57:39 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
>>> silviapfeiff...@
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:34:02 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:57:39 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Philip,
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
I'm not
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:57:39 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <
> silviapfeiff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Philip,
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> wrote:
>>
>> * there is a possibility to provide script that just affe
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:57:39 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
Hi Philip,
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
wrote:
* there is a possibility to provide script that just affects the
time-synchronized text resource
I agree that some metadata would be useful, more on that b
Hi Philip,
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> If @profile should have any influence on the parser it sounds like this
> isn't actually XML at all. In particular, the "HTML" would have to be
> well-formed XML, but would still end up in the null namespace.
Yeah, you are r
43 matches
Mail list logo
