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

Re: Survey ready on Media Text Associations proposal

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:34:46 -0800
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-id: <5DEC9CB3-9C23-4DEC-A313-F242B7347D61@apple.com>
To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>

On Mar 10, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:10:01 +0800, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Philip Jägenstedt  
>> <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>>> Is the intention that we specify a track selection algorithm with  
>>> exact
>>> rules for which track to enable based on settings, or should this  
>>> be left to
>>> UAs to override ad-hoc?
>>
>> I don't think anything is prescribed to UAs in the HTML spec - if at
>> all we can only make recommendations on what override rules a UA  
>> uses.
>> No?
>
> There are very clear rules for resource selection for <source> and  
> no provision for the UA to override this. I'm asking if the  
> intention is to specify with the same level of detail which <track>  
> to select and not allow UAs to override this, or if we should simply  
> say that the UA can do whatever it wants. I don't like the latter  
> because it will certainly lead to poor interoperability.

I would prefer if the rules for <track> are as precise as the ones for  
<source>, but I also think that this level of detail can wait until  
after the proposal is submitted to the HTML WG.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 04:35:22 GMT

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