Thursday, 31 January 2013

WebVTT Parser Specification IRC Chat

I when onto #whatwg on It is the main chat room for WHATWG. Here is their IRC page. Please note the regulars.


  1. # [18:22] <KyleBarnhart> Hi. Is there someone of authority how can definitively answer a question regarding the implementation of the WebVTT text track specification?
  2. # [18:22] <KyleBarnhart> Specifically...
  3. # [18:24] <KyleBarnhart> I am part of a team who is trying to implement the standard. Whereas I take the view that the parser section of the specification is to be adhered to when writing an implementation, they take the view that the implementation is should be written to the syntax rules and the parser section can be ignored.
  4. # [18:25] <Ms2ger> The parser section is the only relevant one for an implementation
  5. # [18:26] <KyleBarnhart> It is one. Not a validator. It is parsing the format for the eventual use in Mozilla.
  6. # [18:26] <Ms2ger> Right
  7. # [18:26] <Ms2ger> Then you want to follow the parsing section
  8. # [18:27] <Ms2ger> I understand your first patches are due today?
  9. # [18:28] <KyleBarnhart> I believe.
  10. # [18:28] <KyleBarnhart> I'm not responsible for that. I'm handling testing at the moment.
  11. # [18:29] <Ms2ger> Great, we'll need quite a few of those :)
  12. # [18:34] <KyleBarnhart> Is it okay if the parser (and I mean in the final future version) differs in some significant ways from the specification? Such as when to and not to discard a cue, and accepting input that the specification would not allow.
  13. # [18:43] <Ms2ger> If the code is to end up in Gecko, it had better follow the specification to the letter
  14. # [18:44] <Hixie> KyleBarnhart: what do they think the spec is for, if not following?
  15. # [18:45] <MikeSmith> inspiration
  16. # [18:46] <Ms2ger> Suggestions


  1. # [18:56] <KyleBarnhart> Thank you very much for your answer. I'm going to go now and discuss this with our team.
  2. # [18:56] <Hixie> KyleBarnhart: please don't hesitate to ask any other questions
  3. # [18:57] <KyleBarnhart> Thank you :)
  4. # [18:57] <Velmont> KyleBarnhart: What's also good to know is that specs are never really set in stone.
  5. # [18:58] <Hixie> MikeSmith: when you have a moment and happen to be at bugzilla's admin page again, if you could add a "Needs Research" between "2022 Q4" and "Needs Impl Interest", that'd be great
  6. # [18:58] <Velmont> KyleBarnhart: It should follow what implementations do as well. So if there's something strange there it might be a bug in the spec.
  7. # [18:58] <Hixie> KyleBarnhart: yeah, what Velmont said. If there's a reason to implement something other than the spec, we should change the spec.
  8. # [18:58] <Hixie> KyleBarnhart: the reason to have a spec is to make sure everyone does the same thing, but so long as they all do the same thing, it doesn't really matter what that thing is exactly
  9. # [18:58] <Velmont> KyleBarnhart: Although there is already implementions of that one, so hopefully there shouldn't be too much :-)

No comments:

Post a comment