W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > May 2012

Re: discussion of video transcript - issue 194

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 19:04:09 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=NQ6x00ueupxVduwpyCMEarMMUuOQthPJC_=c_o7-DJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here is the first draft of a proposal that we've recently started
>> discussing at Google:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/Issue194_SP
>>
>> Please read with an open mind and feel free to make suggestions for improvement.
>
> If we're going to reuse @for and @id, we should probably make the
> following work as well to match how these attributes work with
> <label>:
>
> <transcript>
> <video id=v1 src=video.mp4></video>
> <p>This is a on-page transcript.</p>
> </transcript>

If we use @for, then this indeed makes sense.

What is your opinion between the choice of @for and @transcript?


> There might be rationale to make the following work as well:
>
> <video id=v1 src=video.mp4></video>
> <transcript>
> <p>This is a on-page transcript.</p>
> </transcript>
>
> <label>Label</label><input>
>
> <label>Label</label><select></select>
>
> <input type="checkbox"><label>Label</label>
>
> <input type="radio"><label>Label</label>
>
> But this would need testing for compatibility with the existing corpus.

Is that one suggestion or 5?

Cheers,
Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 09:05:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 May 2012 09:05:04 GMT