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

Re: Change Proposal for Issue 194

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 00:56:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CAEhSh3cRVaWx4ZMQn4dMAo5r3fU937YobC76Cn7k4DC590v+aA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>  <a href="url">Transcript</a>
>>> You can still do that. In the worst browser, it will make no difference, but
>>> it seems likely that the best browsers will aim to provide something better
>>> if they get something more than that. At the very least, it is pretty
>>> straightforward to write an extension to handle more useful markup...
>> Yes - that's more or less my point. The above works, and can be made
>> better in shiny new browsers, so why not use it?
> This works, too:
> <transcript><a href="url">Transcript</a></transcript>
> and can be made even better in shiny new browsers than just the link alone.

How so?

AFAICT whatever browsers can do with that, they can do the same with:

<video transcript=t></video>
<a id=t href="url">Transcript</a>

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 23:57:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:28 UTC