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

Re: ISSUE-163 navigating-tracks: Chairs Solicit Change Proposals

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:51:45 +1000
Message-Id: <A455DA5F-A5CB-4641-8E7A-C3D03663CECC@gmail.com>
Cc: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>


On 08/07/2011, at 4:55 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>> OK, the second is not true. But if you're doing it like this, why bother
>> with cues at all? Wouldn't it be cleaner to have *only* a root <nav> with
>> possible <nav> children? Using ranges for some chapters and cues for other
>> is not very appealing, IMO.
> 
> Agreed.  The markup in the wiki is very confusing, imo, since
> top-level chapters are indicated in a completely different way from
> subchapters.
> 

In my mind, the single-level subdivision  as in DVD chapters is the 80% use case. Even with many Daisy files I have only seen single level subdivision. This subdivision would also be the one that I would visually represent in the player. I have an experiment at http://html5videoguide.net/demos/google_io/3_navigation/ with chapter markers on the timeline.

So, the hierarchical navigation - as much as there is a need for it - could just stay within the cue.

That seemed an appropriate solution that wouldn't need any new HTML features. I'm not wedded to this solution though.

Silvia.
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 00:52:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:26 UTC