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 28258 - [webvtt] more formal grammar? [I18N-ISSUE-424]
Summary: [webvtt] more formal grammar? [I18N-ISSUE-424]
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
Depends on:
Reported: 2015-03-22 00:06 UTC by Silvia Pfeiffer
Modified: 2017-08-09 11:56 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
silviapfeiffer1: needinfo? (addison)


Description Silvia Pfeiffer 2015-03-22 00:06:19 UTC
Feedback by Addison Phillips from W3C I18N group:

I18N comment:

The document structure is described as a sequence of prose. Wouldn't it be better to describe it as a grammar using an established syntax such as ABNF, EBNF, or railroad diagrams? Our WG found the document much harder to comprehend that it might otherwise have been.
Comment 1 Silvia Pfeiffer 2015-06-08 12:11:48 UTC
Are you asking for an ABNF for creation of just the file structure or for anything in a WebVTT file?
Comment 2 Silvia Pfeiffer 2015-09-30 23:11:01 UTC
It's almost impossible to write a conformant ABNF for this. I'd regard this as a nice-to-have. I'd be happy to look at a patch for this, though, if you have one.
Comment 3 Simon Pieters 2015-10-04 20:21:11 UTC
I can have a look at creating non-normative railroad diagrams.
Comment 4 David Singer 2016-10-11 17:21:25 UTC
Can we either provide the diagrams, or close as wontfix (as we do not intend to change the way that VTT is specified at this time)?
Comment 5 David Singer 2016-11-14 23:57:07 UTC
Note that if it's helping authors that is desired, we have the guide material at the (admittedly frozen) webplatform docs site.

We need a new place to host this content.
Comment 6 David Singer 2016-11-15 00:02:26 UTC
I moved the page wholesale into the Wiki
Comment 7 Silvia Pfeiffer 2016-11-16 20:39:08 UTC
(In reply to David Singer from comment #6)
> I moved the page wholesale into the Wiki 

That's not a formal grammar - that's just an authoring guide.
Comment 8 David Singer 2016-11-17 18:35:32 UTC
(In reply to Silvia Pfeiffer from comment #7)
> (In reply to David Singer from comment #6)
> > I moved the page wholesale into the Wiki 
> > 
> >
> That's not a formal grammar - that's just an authoring guide.

Yes, agreed.  But railroad diagrams would also be only informative, I hope.  I don't think we can have both a formal grammar and formal parsing rules without severe risk that they don't match, so I took the previous discussion as saying that No, we won't have a formal grammar, but we'll try to make life easier for authors by supplying railroad diagrams or an authoring guide.  In the lack of diagrams, I suggest we at least point towards the guide.
Comment 9 David Singer 2017-03-30 18:30:53 UTC
Given the existence of an authoring guide, and our desire not to have normative syntax in addition to normative parsing rules, can we close this issue?
Comment 10 Simon Pieters 2017-04-13 11:06:29 UTC
Comment 11 Silvia Pfeiffer 2017-08-09 11:56:48 UTC
would you mind indicating if you're ok with the resolution of this bug?