21230 2013-03-09 07:43:54 +0000 WebVTT: specify extension points in syntax spec 2014-01-28 04:15:41 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified TextTracks CG WebVTT unspecified PC All RESOLVED WONTFIX v1 P2 normal --- 1 silviapfeiffer1 silviapfeiffer1 glenn ian mike philipj public-texttracks dave.null oldest_to_newest 84169 0 silviapfeiffer1 2013-03-09 07:43:54 +0000 People that don't read the parsing rules do not understand what possibilities the file format has for adding things such as metadata headers. That needs to be clarified. Also add a notice at syntax specification that implementers need to read the parsing section. 84184 1 glenn 2013-03-09 16:26:54 +0000 I'm not sure we should highlight that. It could encourage people to use it, which we don't want (we don't want people sticking their own headers in there and creating backwards-compatibility headaches when the spec itself wants to use it). It doesn't seem important to know about these things in order to implement the spec or use the file format. Agreed on the latter, of course. 86113 2 ian 2013-04-12 23:31:24 +0000 I'm with zewt on this. This is something we shouldn't mention. (e.g. we don't mention it for HTML — the closest we get to it is mentioning one case, in passing, in an example under "Errors that could interfere with new syntax in the future" in an introduction section.) 99243 3 philipj 2014-01-28 04:05:01 +0000 I don't think we should point out in the syntax where the parser will skip things, if people want to know that they should read the parser section. Telling implementors to read the parser and not the syntax also seems like a rather extreme precaution, one I would like to see implementors complain about before taking. Silvia, I think we should close this bug. 99246 4 silviapfeiffer1 2014-01-28 04:15:41 +0000 Yes, fair enough.