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

Re: Survey ready on Media Multitrack API proposal

From: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:32:57 -0800
Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <EFDE2024-FAAD-4A97-9FD6-E740F940E6A5@apple.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>

On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:42 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> 
> I don't think we need to make it this complicated.
> 
> If I understand it correctly, in MPEG, track groups are built by
> giving each track of the same group the same identifier. This could
> just be replicated in the JavaScript API:
> 
> interface MediaTrack {
> ...
>  readonly attribute DOMString groupname;
> ...
> }
> 
> Then the functions of getting all tracks that belong to the same group
> can be built as convenience functions on top of this one attribute.
> 
> Seeing as the majority of use cases will not include grouping (e.g. I
> wasn't able to find a single MPEG file that has track groups), this
> simpler JavaScript API looks preferable to me and will be easier to
> deal with for a script author IMHO.
> 
  I agree that we should not make this overly complicated and I agree with your suggestion generally, but I think "groupId" would be a better name for the attribute than "groupname".  Alternate group in ISO and QuickTime files is an integer, and while it may be a string in other container formats I don't think we should imply that the attribute is anything but an identifier.

eric
Received on Sunday, 7 March 2010 01:33:30 GMT

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