[MPlayer-dev-eng] Small changes to subreader.c file

[Ivan Kalvachev]

2005/10/11, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 04:59:11PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > 2005/10/11, Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de>:
> > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 12:47:15PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > But I have it in AUTHORS, as one of the the few things i've done that
> > > > worth mentioning.
> > >
> > > The AUTHORS file does not help when looking for maintainers, though.
> > > Most parts of the code are not maintained by their original authors
> > > nowadays.
> > >
> > > If somebody considers himself the maintainer of code part X, he better
> > > list himself in MAINTAINERS, or at least not blame anybody for believing
> > > part X to be unmaintained...
> >
> > Diego, please stop nagging. When I commited I clearly stated that this
> > peace of code is mine, I had wrote it. I do not claim maintainership
> > of the whole subreader.c because of this.
> > Replacing the arguments is old flaming/trolling technique and I am
> > surprised to see you using it.
>
> I'm not trying to flame/troll here, although - admittedly - trying to
> raise an unrelated valid point in a flame thread is difficult to say the
> least.
>
> My point remains: Whoever is not listed in MAINTAINERS cannot expect
> others to know they are maintaining some random part of MPlayer.  If you
> wish for this fact to be known, announce it, otherwise don't complain.
>
> I'm saying this in general, not aimed at anyone in particular.
>

Generally speaking, I expect when I say that this code is mine, the
people who read it to consider that either this code is mine or that I
lie about it.
And specificly speaking, mine statement is quoted in the rich reverse
announcement in this thread.

Now, back to the subject.
Here is forward of the reply I get.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: A I <ai4spam gmail.com>
Date: 2005-10-12 4:40
Subject: Re: .srt format specifications.
To: Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev gmail.com>
Cc: submagic netcourrier.com, "jeinrem post.cz" <jeinrem post.cz>


Well, in my opinion, since SubRip is a Windows program (until someone
decides to compile it with Kylix), we should use the Windows CRLF.
That is the standard, AFAIK.
As for compatibility, it's not really your fault, it's the firmware
developper's fault.
I agree, however, that an "official" spec would be nice to have.

-ai4spam



On 10/11/05, Ivan Kalvachev <ikalvachev at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> I am one of MPlayer developers and I come with quite simple request.
> I (we) need SRT format specifications.
>
> Even if currently there are no specifications, it would be good to
> write some. Some dvd/divx players can handle srt and it would be good
> if everything is cristal clear.
>
> The reason is an ongoing flamewar should we follow the OS convention
> for writing text files (line end in  unix (lf) , mac (cr) , windows
> (lf/cr) ), or always write them in Windows convention.
> The flamewar started because srt files generated by mplayer could not
> be handled by some hardware players.
>
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> Ivan Kalvachev
> iive
>
----------End of Forwarded message ----------

Well this is the current maintainer of SubRip, he is  working on
second version of srt. I guess we will have specs for it.
I  couldn't find working email of the original author (first one in
the cc doesn't work for sure). But as we already know that even the
Kylix version will produce CRLF, we can conclude that this is by
purpose.

The strongest and only argument against CRLF is that we must use the
native OS text convention.

So far in this discussion I had saw a lot of arguments in favour of
using CRLF format, the strongest been that HTML is also in CRLF (and
somehow i don't think this format originate from windows;) Not to say
that other unix tools also dump in CRLF. And that there are many
crappy code that cannot handle srt if it is not in CRLF. (This is what
I call compatibility)

I'm gonna wait few days in case original author speaks up.
Then I am gonna recommit the CRLF patch (with "wb" change).
If some of the developers are against this I would like to hear their reasoning.

Best Regards
   Ivan Kalvachev
  iive

P.S. start thinking about other "text" subtitle dump formats.