- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:15:52 +1100
- To: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net> wrote: >> retitling: "<audio> and <video> do not have sufficient support for >> synchronized alternative content for accessibility" > > Better and maybe fine, except for the "alternative content" categorization. > I would still say the alternative content is fallback. Fallback to > alternative content is more like a failure mode for <video> and <audio>. Well, the word "alternative content" has a tradition in WAI for accessibility, see http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TECHS/#gl-provide-equivalents. Unfortunately it has been overloaded for fallback for legacy browsers, and also for fallback for HTML5 browsers with audio and video where the media format is unknown. This was the mix up in this bug in particular. I tried cleaning it up a bit in comment #14 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5758#c14 . Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 14 March 2010 23:16:45 UTC