<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<meta name="generator" content="pandoc" />
<title></title>
<style type="text/css">code{white-space: pre;}</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>[ Resending this message due to weird <code>Reply-To</code> on the email which this one is (now properly) a reply to.]</p>
<p>Hi Rémi,</p>
<p>On 2016-11-18 09:52, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<pre><code> The function name implies path as input so nack. Maybe rename the
function [.]</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I see no inherent problem with the <em>function-name</em>, a <em>file</em> is a <em>file</em> no matter if it is being referred to by an <em>URI</em> or relative path.</p>
<p>But the function name could/should be changed to something else for different reasons. It has never reflected the intent of the function (which is to “redirect” one subtitle-extension to another, if the latter is present).</p>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;color:#500050">
<pre><code> [...] AFAIR, wz already have support for adding slaves as URI.</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s about support for adding slaves as URI given the relevant code-path, not overall.</p>
<p>Yes, we do have support for adding slaves through <code>INPUT_ADD_SLAVE</code> with an explicit type. That approach does however <em>not</em> the <code>subtitles_Filter</code> as <code>INPUT_ADD_SLAVE</code> (meaning that code that conditionally want to add something as a subtitle-slave will have to reimplement that functionality).</p>
<p>Merging <code>INTPUT_ADD_SLAVE</code> and <code>INPUT_ADD_SUBTITLE</code> could be a possibility, but the changes will be more drastic.</p>
</body>
</html>