On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 04:39:43 -0700, Silvia Pfeiffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/10/2010, at 1:28 PM, "Philip Jägenstedt" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:18:37 -0700, Silvia Pfeiffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 01:57:17 -0700, James Graham <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 10/06/2010 04:04 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
As an aside, the idea of using an HTML parser for the cue text wasn't
very popular.
Why? Were any technical reasons given?
The question was directed at the media player/framework developers
present.
One of them didn't care and one was strongly opposed on the basis of
bloat.
This was an aside, if anyone is serious about using the HTML fragment
parser
for WebSRT, we really should approach the developer mailing lists of
media
players/frameworks. I doubt we will find much love, but would be
happy to be
shown wrong.
The one I talked to said that HTML markup should totally be used in
cues (he
even mentioned more generally why we didn't pick up USF). The reason
being
that it clearly defines extensibility and would in fact already
provide any
use case that anyone can come up with, thus stopping people from
inventing
their own screwed up extensions, such as the use of ass commands in {}
inside srt subtitles.
The thing is: while the full set of features of HTML fragments seems
bloat,
not every subtitle will consist of all the possible markup. Just like
Web
pages are often created with very simple markup which uses less then
1% of
what HTML is capable of, we will see the same happening with subtitle
cues.
But the availability and clear definition of how such features should
be
used prevents the introduction of crappy extension.
Even if very few subtitles use inline SVG, SVG in <object>, <img>,
<iframe>, <video>, self-referencing <track>, etc in the cue text, all
implementations would have to support it in the same way for it to be
interoperable. That's quite an undertaking and I don't think it's
really worth it.
They all need to be interoperable on all of these features already. It
should be easier to keep them interoperable on something known and
already implemented than on a set of new features, in particular when
the new feature set is restricted and features beyond the limited given
set are not available such that custom "markup" will be produced by
plugins etc.
As for extensibility, I suggest that we generalize the WebSRT parser
somewhat to produce a normal DOM with elements in a non-HTML namespace
and then use CSS to style them as usual. Unknown element names
shouldn't be valid, of course, but they'd still appear in the DOM. If
"XML5" (http://annevankesteren.nl/2007/10/xml5) was ready, I'd suggest
we use that, with the constraint that it should only be able to output
elements in that non-HTML namespace. (Just thinking out loud here.)
I think that's ok, even though I think it makes more sense to have HTML
fragments than arbitrary markup that is related but somewhat different.
I think we are then just re-inventing HTML.
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 05:20:28 -0700, Robert O'Callahan
<[email protected]> wrote:
User agents only need to be interoperable over the common subset of HTML
features they support. HTML is mostly designed to degrade gracefully
when a
user agent encounters elements it doesn't support. The simplest possible
video player would use an HTML parser (hopefully off-the-shelf) to build
some kind of DOM structure. Then it can group text into paragraphs for
rendering, and ignore the rest of the content.
In practice, we'll have to deal with user agents that support different
sets
of WebSRT features --- when version 2 of WebSRT is developed, if not
before.
Why not use existing, proven machinery --- HTML --- to cope with that
situation?
I do think that a syntax that looks similar to HTML and XML should have
similar parsing, which WebSRT currently doesn't. However, using HTML seems
to create plenty of complications, such as:
* What are relative URLs in <a> and <img> relative to? Is it the
containing document or the WebSRT document? When following links, which
window is navigated?
* When are external resources like <img>, <object> and <video> loaded?
* If a WebSRT cue includes <video autoplay>, when should that nested video
play?
* If a WebSRT cue starting at time 0 includes a self-referring
<video><track> that will be enabled by default, what should happen?
* When should the track be considered ready? This delays the
loadedmetadata on <video>, see
<http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html#the-timed-tracks-are-ready>
I'd like to understand in more detail what exactly is being suggested be
done with the HTML fragments returned by the parser, in order to answer
these questions. Neither of the two obvious implementation approaches
"temporary document in iframe" and "temporary part of containing document"
seem like very good solutions, but I'll hold off more concrete criticism
until there is a concrete suggestion.
(Finally, I should mention that I'm assuming that the cue text format of
WebSRT will also be used in WebM when we add support for in-band captions,
unless EBML can somehow be leveraged.)
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010 06:00:25 -0700, Jeroen Wijering
<[email protected]> wrote:
The requests we receive on the captioning functionality of the JW Player
always revolve around styling. Font size, color, style, weight, outline
and family. Block x, y, width, height, text-align, vertical-align,
padding, margin, background and alpha. Both for an entire SRT file, for
distinct captioning entries and for specific parts of a captioning
entry. Not to say that a full parsing engine wouldn't be nice or useful,
but at present there's simply no requests for it (not even for <a> ;).
Plus, more advanced timed track applications can easily be built with
javascript (timed boucing 3D balls using WebGL).
W3C's timed text does a decent job in facilitating the styling needs for
captioning authors. Overall regions, single paragraphs and inline chunks
(through <span>) can be styled. There are a few small misses, such as
text outline, and vertical alignment (which can be done with separate
regions though). IMO the biggest con of TT is that it uses its own,
in-document styling namespace, instead of relying upon page CSS.
Another thing that TTML does pretty well is the "agent metadata", i.e.
marking up the speaker, linking that with the name of the character and
actor. It adds one level of indirection, but allows using a short-hand id
in the markup instead of the full character name. Other cons are:
* It's an interchange format, so it has the complexity of many other
formats combined.
* Almost completely presentational markup.
* Hard-coded to a particular resolution of video, at least the examples
are.
Now and then someone suggests using a subset of TTML, but I haven't seen
any concrete proposal of what exactly would remain.
--
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
