[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/3] textdec: Rename all generic parts from srt to text.

[Clément Bœsch]

On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 12:12:55PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
> Le sextidi 16 thermidor, an CCXX, Clément Bœsch a écrit :
> > That tag soup really is SubRip specific; WebVTT for example¹ defines
> > another taste for the soup, so I think it would be better to have
> > CODEC_ID_SUBRIP.
> 
> The difference is that WebVTT clearly defines the accepted syntax, while
> SubRip does not.
> 

A lot of formats don't define a clear standard either. If the current
SubRip markup gets renamed into TagSoup, it will likely evolve to support
more tags initially not supposed to be in SubRip. I'm not sure that's a
good idea. Example: "MySubFormat supports tags like <i>, <b> just like the
generic TagSoup but I also have the tag <img>, let's add the support in
TagSoup", and now you can decode MKV+TEXT with muxed <img>, and you can
put <img> into SRT files as well.

I don't think that's wise.

> > and ASS-tags? huh?
> 
> That is what we discussed a few hours ago: some file have them. And that is
> precisely why I think "TAGSOUP" is more descriptive than SUBRIP: this is an
> unholy mix of various standards in the hope that bogus players will display
> them as expected.
> 

Where do you want to handle this?

The ASS tags presence is unconditional to the formats. You can have
extra ASS tags in SRT, as well as SAMI and maybe more. That needs to be
handled at a higher level, for every subtitles I guess.

> > > - newlines marked by CR?LF;
> > some SRT files might only have \n, both should be supported.
> 
> That is exactly what the '?' in the pseudo-regexp stands for.
> 

ok :)

[...]

-- 
Clément B.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20120802/1fcb0ee2/attachment.asc>