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

[Bug 13359] <track> A way is needed to identify the type of data in a track element

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:43:17 +0000
Message-Id: <E1TB5Cn-0001Bp-2N@jessica.w3.org>
To: public-html-a11y@w3.org

--- Comment #68 from Bob Lund <b.lund@cablelabs.com> 2012-09-10 14:43:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #66)
> (In reply to comment #65)
> > If all the page generator (human author or otherwise) has is the URL to the
> > content then how will it know the type of content?
> That's what mime types are for.

If the page in question sets the src attribute of the video element with the
content URL, there is no need for the mime type.

> > > If the author doesn't know the media type/can't find out through probing, why
> > > would the browser get it right?
> > 
> > The browser has access to the content-type when it tries to play the content,
> > right?
> The JS developer has that access, too, via the getResponseHeader() function,
> see http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#the-getresponseheader-method .

I don't understand the relevance of XHR to this? All the page and UA have is a
URL to a content item. 

> Is that sufficient or do you have a use case beyond this?

No, the suggestions aren't sufficient for the above-stated reasons.

If there is a way JS can determine the type of a content item given only the
URL then I think that would suffice. Otherwise, I think it would be better for
the UA to tag the dispatch string as suggested based on the mime type it will
have when playing the content. This always works and makes no assumptions about
what content metadata is available at page creation.

Configure bugmail: https://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 Monday, 10 September 2012 14:43:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:30 UTC