W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > August 2011

[Bug 13436] Editorial changes to The Video element (4 of 5)

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 04:49:41 +0000
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qs6AH-0001Sv-Mq@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13436

--- Comment #9 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> 2011-08-13 04:49:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > "means that UAs have to follow it
> > > unless they have a good reason not to."
> > 
> > This is a vague phrase that means very little from a technical perspective. The
> > UA may decide the "good reason" is because they just don't feel like doing it.
> > It's entirely subjective. 
> 
> You don't understand what the RFC 2119 keywords mean.  Please read
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

And the HTML5 spec states UAs "should" display the video control when scripting
is disabled, yet only one UA does. So much for "should".

There is no reason not to provide a facility to choose tracks if the control is
displayed. Well, unless there's a particular reason to deliberately disable
video accessibility. Is there a reason to deliberately disable video
accessibility? 

What is one good use case for not ensuring this capability?

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 13 August 2011 04:49:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:42:43 GMT