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

Re: Survey ready on Media Text Associations proposal

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:38:40 +0800
To: "Michael Smith" <mike@w3.org> (tm), "Eric Carlson" <eric.carlson@apple.com>
Cc: "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.u82seqlaatwj1d@philip-pc>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 01:36:23 +0800, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>  
wrote:

>
> On Mar 2, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
>
>> A survey is ready on the "Media Text Associations" draft change
>> proposal.
>>
>>  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/44061/text-associations/
>>
>
> I generally agree with this proposal, but would like to see the  
> following changes before we submit it to the WG:
>
> + We should not mandate DFXP at this time. It has many features that  
> will complicate implementation significantly which are not needed for  
> this proposal. I think we should help define a DFXP profile that is more  
> suitable for our needs.

For the record, I still agree.

> + The 'enabled' attribute on a <track> in a <trackgroup> should be  
> invalid, as the UA is responsible for selecting the most appropriate  
> track from the alternates.

What should the track selection algorithm be? Do you still want to keep  
the enabled *property* so that scripts can switch between different tracks  
of a group, just like the browser context menu? I am not very optimistic  
about UA track selection being very useful being applying the 'media'  
attribute. I also have a feeling we haven't completely thought through  
what kind of selection belong on the <trackgroup><track> level and what  
belongs in <track><source> (assuming we'll go with that, just like for  
<audio> and <video>).

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 5 March 2010 03:39:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:03 GMT