Unrelated to the question but I don’t believe webm(matroska) is based on RIFF, webp is but that’s separate.
Maybe considered in https://www.w3.org/2025/03/26-mse-text-tracks-minutes.html?
Your username is purple. Thank you for developing the Voyager app lol
I have a rule. Every time I come upon their posts in the wild or see a significant update, I donate.
I’ve downloaded the app because of your comment!
Because Google wants subtitles hidden behind their server. There’s your answer.
Because you touch yourself at night
Maybe webm and mp4 files with multiple language tracks are usually played with a media player, not a web browser?
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
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.
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.
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
I mean, modern web browsers are trying to be absolutely everything else as well. Fully supporting a format isn’t exactly an outrageous expectation.
I’m not suggesting that it’s outrageous. Merely that it’s probably not a high priority.
You know what is a priority? AI because fuck knows why.
You WANT to go back to the era of autoplay music on every fuckdamn page?
Not sure what that has to do with “multiple audio and subtitle tracks”. Would supporting that somehow lead to “autoplay music” any more than from the features that browsers already support?
Only if it’s midi and just one instrument.
Midi you say? https://onlinesequencer.net/3571035
yes
I can’t think of an occasion where I’ve been listening to something online and wanted tracks - everything that would benefit from having them, I would prefer to download and run via VLC anyways. I think there just isn’t any demand for the switch, and it would break a lot of legacy tools (like auto-transcription bots) to switch, much as .webp has.
