W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2007

Re: conflation of issues or convergence of interests?

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:05:07 +1000
Message-ID: <46AC3C23.3020500@lachy.id.au>
To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> At 15:08 +1000 UTC, on 2007-07-28, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> [...]
>> Does there really
>> need to be an explicit association between the video and the link to
>> it's textual alternative?
> 
> Yes, otherwise there'd be no indication that it is an alternative. The only
> way for a user to find that out would then be to consume both resources and
> deduct that they were probably intended as equivalents.

Explicit association is not the only way to indicate a relationship 
between items.

>> Look at any video on YouTube, for example.  There is no explicit
>> association in the markup between the video and its metadata, such as
>> the user who uploaded it, the description, tags, number of times it has
>> been viewed or favourited, etc.
> 
> None of those are equivalents of the video. They are complimentary. You're
> mixing up very different things.

I was demonstrating the implicit relationship between those and the 
video.  It doesn't matter what they are; it certainly doesn't matter 
that none of them were alternative content.  What matters is whether the 
user can understand the relationship between them.  If it's possible to 
have a successful, implicit relationship between a video and it's 
description (or whatever else), it should also be possible between a 
video and a link to its alternative.

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2007 07:05:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:47 UTC