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