On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 01:28:16PM +0100, Moritz Barsnick wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:30:27 +0100, Clément Bœsch wrote: > > --- > > libavcodec/Makefile | 1 + > > libavcodec/allcodecs.c | 2 +- > > libavcodec/srtenc.c | 37 +++++++- > > libavcodec/version.h | 2 +- > > tests/fate/subtitles.mak | 3 + > > tests/ref/fate/sub-textenc | 213 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 6 files changed, 253 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 tests/ref/fate/sub-textenc > > It this encoding, strictly spreaking, still SRT encoding, without the > ASS style formatting? >
It's not actually "srt"/subrip at all since the packet payload will only contain a text string with no markup, while subrip contains the text string with the html tag markup. > That's what I thought from a quick glimpse at the code. I was wondering > whether the SRT encoder should have just gained an option to disable > the styling, without making it a new codec named "text". > The text codec already exists (you can easily imagine a container that contain subtitle as text without markup), so I used that. I chose to place the encoder in the subrip encoder because I'm a lazy bum and didn't want to duplicate the ass parsing code :) > Just wondering, no deeper knowledge (than from an arbitrary search > engine), > Moritz -- Clément B.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
