On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:18:09 +0200, Simon Pieters <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:09:24 +0200, Philip Jägenstedt
<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
If so, please take up the discussion with the relevant developers, in
particular VLC has a large market share and opinions on this matter. I am
not hopeful at all that it would work out.
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?
No, one format is exactly the number I want.
--
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
