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

Re: [media] Track vs. tracks

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:15:12 +1100
Message-ID: <2c0e02831003091415o5c922deehe916b47de3130a52@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:27 AM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Also, in the Media TextAssociations example, <track> currently has a
> 'closing' element (</track>) - is this necessary or mandatory? Could we
> not also treat it like other non-closing elements (<img> for example?) -
> in the XML serialization of HTML5 this could be thus rendered <track
> src="" [etc.] />

We kept this open for extension for the future so as not to make the
same mistake as we made with <source>.

Right now, <source> is not extensible, so we cannot put new
declarative elements inside <source> to describe e.g. the tracks
available in that particular resource, e.g. caption or sign language
tracks. We have to find a different way (which, for now, is the
JavaScript API).

For <track> we are foreseeing that in future it will also be used to
link to external audio or video files (e.g. audio description, sign
language video). Then we will need the <source> mechanism inside it to
support e.g. MPEG and Ogg.

In summary, it's on purpose and will satisfy a future need.

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:16:08 GMT

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