W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>

From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:02:06 +0100
Message-ID: <48B301AE.3000404@cam.ac.uk>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> 
> Dave Singer wrote:
>>> That seems entirely unreasonable to me.  In particular, it doesn't 
>>> let me, as an author, try for a higher-quality codec with fallback to 
>>> a more commonly supported one.
>>
>> No, you mis-understand.  That case is precisely why multiple source 
>> elements are allowed.
> 
> Hmm.  OK.  So I can fall back to a different codec using multiple 
> <source>s.  I can't fall back to a video format that only has plug-in 
> support, though?

You mean something like
<video>
<source>
<source>
<object></object>
</video>

I think that doesn't work as the spec is written at the moment. It seems like it 
would be useful for transitioning to <video> in a situation where the number of 
transcodings of the original is smaller than the subset of all browser-supported 
encodings but an applet/plugin basedlayer for one transcoding is available. One 
example of this would be wikimedia using <video>+ogg which currently won't work 
for most people in Safari but will work in Firefox (although as I understand it 
the wikimedia people actually want a different solution as they think the UI of 
their plugin is better than the browser native UI or something).

-- 
"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
  -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 19:02:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:22 GMT