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

Re: Media--Technical Implications of Our User Requirements

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:57:47 +1200
Message-ID: <AANLkTiknY06ktizYGCxFN6LRqOGOJ2U4v3Y_RgMKVcJp@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 6:07 PM, 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.


I would agree with this statement if we restricted what is possible in
a caption cue. However, I don't see a need for this. If we, instead,
simply allow what is possible in a HTML div, I don't see this as an
issue - it would not limit what can be done in a cue and it would be
easy to implement by browsers since it would just be parsed as
innerHTML, for which all parsing functionality is already available.

Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 2010 08:58:39 GMT

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