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

Re: Media--Technical Implications of Our User Requirements

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:54:10 +0200
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vf4tkkdoatwj1d@philip-pc>
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:07:32 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> >
>> > But youtube, for example, does have annotations with hyperlinks in
>> > them. They're not captions, but they're still timed text content that
>> > contain hyperlinks.
>>
>> Do we need YouTube-style annotation to be a built-in feature of the
>> <video> element? Or would it be sufficient to make the <video> element
>> capable enough that YouTube or other sites could build similar features
>> themselves out of the primitives provided
>
> Indeed it seems unlikely that YouTube would want to use a built-in
> feature for the presentational aspects of this, since doing so would  
> limit
> what they could do in the future to whatever we supported in the spec.
> This is the kind of things for which I think it would make more sense to
> provide hooks to allow Web page authors to do whatever they want with the
> <video> timing model merely being used as infrastructure.
>

As an implementor, I obviously agree. A simpler spec means fewer  
browser-specific bugs.

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2010 07:55:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:13 GMT