This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 28408 - [WebVTT] Consider reorganising the Rendering section
Summary: [WebVTT] Consider reorganising the Rendering section
Alias: None
Product: TextTracks CG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: WebVTT (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: This bug has no owner yet - up for the taking
QA Contact: Web Media Text Tracks CG
Whiteboard: widereview
: 28510 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2015-04-06 01:57 UTC by Silvia Pfeiffer
Modified: 2017-07-10 06:20 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:


Description Silvia Pfeiffer 2015-04-06 01:57:57 UTC
Andreas Tai wrote:
"It is an interesting approach to provide different sections to different 
target groups (e.g. WebVTT authors and WebVTT parser implementers) so 
they do not have to read the complete spec. My experience is (after 
reading different versions of WebVTT) that even for a specific task it 
is difficult to get the necessary information without reading through 
the complete spec."

Specifically, we encourage authors to focus on the Syntax section and ignore the Parsing section, which targets implementers.

Yet, the Rendering section is a mix that both target groups have to read with different needs. It might be worth pulling that section apart into a "Styling syntax" section and keep the remainder as "Rendering Process". The "Styling syntax" would go before the Parsing section - could even be part of the "Syntax" section.
Comment 1 Silvia Pfeiffer 2015-06-07 04:53:04 UTC
*** Bug 28510 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 David Singer 2016-10-11 16:29:52 UTC
Notes that 6 only has one subsection, 6.1, and we could therefore hoist everything up one level.

Suggest that the CSS extensions should be a separate top-level section, preceding rendering.
Comment 3 Simon Pieters 2016-10-18 11:44:06 UTC
Comment 4 Andreas Tai 2017-07-10 06:20:20 UTC
Thanks for adding the additional informative section which is a good guidance for authors. There may be small improvements possible how this section is referred to in previous sections of the draft and I also have some comments regarding the general status of CSS extensions, but this need a complete review of the current spec and will be opened as separate issues.