On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 02:28:49 +0200, Chris Double
chris.dou...@double.co.nz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Eric Carlson eric.carl...@apple.com
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
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 (and
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:58:29 +0200, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi 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
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 by sniffing as
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:40:08 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com 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
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:52:26 +0200, Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi 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.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
Aside: WebSRT can't contain binary data, only
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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
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
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 04:32:21 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
The question, then, is if parsers that handle the mentioned markup
also
ignore 1, ruby and rt. I haven't tested it, but I
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
The question, then, is if parsers that handle the
On Aug 25, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:39 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com 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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com 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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com 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
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Eric Carlson eric.carl...@apple.com 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 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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
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
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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
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
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:42:04 +0200, Silvia
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
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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
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
On 18.08.2010 00:43, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.de
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
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, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:38:32 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 5:12 AM, Julian Reschke julian.resc...@gmx.dewrote:
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
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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
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
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 a text format where the structure is ad-hoc, that need can never be
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com 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
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 ann...@opera.com
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
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 ann...@opera.com
wrote:
While players are transitioning to WebSRT they will ensure that they do
not break with future versions of the format.
That's
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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
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
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com 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 ann...@opera.com
wrote:
While players are transitioning to WebSRT they will
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
I have checked the parse spec and
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, which
is clearly not very useful for extensibility. No matter how
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.comwrote:
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
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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
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
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:01 +0200, Silvia
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
phil...@opera.comwrote:
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
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 09:57:39 +0200, Silvia
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
* there is a possibility to provide script that just affects the
time-synchronized text resource
I agree that
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.comwrote:
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 phil...@opera.com
wrote:
* there is a possibility to provide
Hi Philip,
On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com 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.
41 matches
Mail list logo
