W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [media] Moving forward with captions / subtitles

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:41:53 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831002142241l41ee0c97ke84131a678b4e3a3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>
> I think we should optimize for the common case and that having any nesting
> when there are at most a few tracks (which should be the overwhelming
> majority of cases) makes the markup less clear. I could live with optional
> grouping, e.g. <trackgroup>:
>
> Common case:
>
> <video>
>  <track src="captions.srt">
>  <track src="zimu.srt" lang="zh">
> </video>
>
> Complex case:
>
> <video>
>  <trackgroup role="captions">
>    <track src="captions.srt">
>    <!-- lots of tracks -->
>  </trackgroup>
>  <trackgroup role="karaoke">
>    <!-- lots of tracks -->
>  </trackgroup>
>  <!-- lots of groups -->
> </video>
>
> <track>s in a <trackgroup> are mutually exclusive while tracks in different
> groups are not. This is the only semantics expressed -- grouping doesn't
> have to be based on role. By default all tracks are mutually exclusive.

This is exactly replicating what the wiki page already says, except
with <trackgroup> instead of <track> and with <track> instead of
<source>. Also, it adds the discussed stand-alone possibility of
<track> with a @src attribute, which we had already discussed.

Could we just stick with the naming as we have it at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_TextAssociations ?


> lang="" is already inherited,

Where from? I am confused.


> perhaps we could do the same for role="" to
> that either or both can be specified on <trackgroup>?

That would be an option to add to the stand-alone <track> element ,
too (again, going back to previously discussed spec).

I'm rather confused by this new proposal, when it mostly replicates
the old one, just with new names. Also, it doesn't reuse <source>
which I found an advantage of the previous proposal.


Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Monday, 15 February 2010 06:42:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:02 GMT