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

Re: Survey ready on Media Text Associations proposal

From: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:36:27 -0800
Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DCB74CB2-25C0-4B7C-ABB9-8E0B71682D21@apple.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>

On Mar 10, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
  I agree with Maciej and Philip, we should have precise rules for <track> selection.

eric
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 15:37:00 GMT

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