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

Re: acceptable fallbacks [was: Re: Is longdesc a good solution? ...]

From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:36:13 +0200
Message-ID: <48C6EC4D.5070503@malform.no>
To: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, wai-xtech@w3.org

Jim Jewett 2008-09-09 21.34:

> the question is whether it would be worth an explicit annotation.
> 
>    <details id=mov1><legend>
>      <a href=transcript.html>Annotated transcript of XYZ</a>
>      </legend> ... </details>
>    <video src=movie.ogg fallback=#mov1>
>       Please read the transcript or upgrade to a browser that supports
> HTML5 video.</video>
> 
> (For the moment, I am explicitly not taking a position on whether that
> @fallback should be @alt, @longdesc, link@rel=alternate, etc.)
> 
> I'm almost inclined to say "no", because the final <source> element
> could do the same job, if properly defined.
> 
>    <video src=movie.ogg>
>      <source src=movie.ogv type="video/ogg">
>      <source src=#mov1>
>      Please upgrade to a browser  that supports HTML5 video.</video>
>    </video>
>    <p><a id=mov1 href=transcript.html>Annotated transcript</a></p>

A very interesting way of solving the problem of a long/complex 
fallback for <video> and <audio>!  Two flies in one bang: both the 
fallback issue and the "transcript available to all" issue solved 
at once. (Of course, it would be possible to say <source 
src=transcript.html> instead of <source src=#mov1>, if need be. 
But would/should both ways create the same user experience?)

There is much similarity between this and using @longdesc . But 
this seems more logical - when first the opportunity is there. 
Lachlan, Henri - what do you say? ;-)
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 21:37:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:23 GMT