• who@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Maybe webm and mp4 files with multiple language tracks are usually played with a media player, not a web browser?

    • einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      pretty much every animation u see online nowerdays is a webm, i just think it would be nice if browsers would support the full feature set of it, it would allow to put captions over animations where the captions dont get compressed and hence would stay readable even at high compression

      • desktop_user@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        pretty much every animation u see online nowerdays is a webm

        false, I use websites with significant numbers of gif files for animation.

      • Tanoh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        One problem with that use case is that you as the creator doesn’t control where (screen position) and how (font face, size, etc) the subtitles are rendered. The browser and user control that, so I doubt they would be widely used for meme because of this.

        However, I do agree that it would be nice to have support for it for other reasons.

        • SatyrSack@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          Is that specific to RIFF/WEBM or something? Because from my limited experience with subtitles, “the creator” absolutely does have control over that. Though it can always be overridden by the client, of course.

          • Kissaki@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Supporting soft subs is a complex topic though. Three formats, font embedding, positioning and animations. It’s a ton of effort, and anything less than “full featureset support” will mean they don’t render how you design them in your full-set editor and local media play. And there will be differences and bugs, at least for a while. I suspect font rendering with various fonts in a media render context will have it’s own set of issues.

            I also think it’d be nice, but I can totally see how it may not make sense technically (complexity with its burdens vs need) or economically.

            Browsers are already absurdly complex though so… maybe? :P

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, modern web browsers are trying to be absolutely everything else as well. Fully supporting a format isn’t exactly an outrageous expectation.

      • who@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m not suggesting that it’s outrageous. Merely that it’s probably not a high priority.

      • who@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Sure, but most YouTube streams aren’t delivered as a single webm or mp4 file, and the language & subtitle selection you’re referring to aren’t implemented by the browser (but instead by a JavaScript application downloaded from Google). So it’s not what OP asked about.