- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:29:29 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:43:25 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 02:51:45 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer >> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> 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 Jägenstedt <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. >> >> <nav> in WebVTT and new logic in getCueAsHTML are new features :) Given >> that >> we all agree that this is a <20% use case, doing something less >> intrusive >> but slightly less author-friendly seems rather reasonable... >> >> (As a side note, having all chapters be explicit ranges makes it easier >> to >> say "play this chapter and pause when done", possibly via Media >> Fragments >> #id or #chapter.) > > Fair enough. I'm more than happy to find something that doesn't need > new markup. I guess it will, however, require mention of the parsing > algorithm and a note that browsers should expose this to accessibility > tools as a hierarchical navigation tree. I've filed http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13184 suggesting this. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 12:29:49 UTC