W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2011

Re: ISSUE-142 (poster-alt): Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:01:46 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTinQHs6c83xRJ13x0hgnGVbq-GaMzaiiE9N-Nyfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Paul Cotton wrote:
>>
>> ISSUE-142 (poster-alt): No alternative text description for
>> video key frame (poster)
>>
>> Per the decision policy, at this time the Chairs would like
>> to solicit volunteers to write Change Proposals for ISSUE-142:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/142
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation
>
>>
>> If no Change Proposals are written by January 26, 2011 this issue
>> will be closed without prejudice.
>
> Please find a Change Proposal for Issue 142 located at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/PosterElement
>
> as requested by the Chairs.

I rather like the CP, though I'm definitely not a fan of the name.
You argue that some people are confused by the current name of the
@poster attribute, but the term "poster frame" seems to be
well-established in general.  "firstframe" seems to imply that it can
only hold the first frame of the video, which is incorrect.

I'd prefer to stick with either <poster>, or perhaps <posterframe>.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2011 02:02:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:22 UTC