W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2012

: ISSUE-194

From: Sunyang (Eric) <eric.sun@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 07:59:37 +0000
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9254B5E6361B1648AFC00BA447E6E8C32AEB6ECD@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
It seems ted mentioned first option 194-6 is 

<a rel=transcript href=transcript.html hreflang=en
   >English language transcript</a>
<video src=video.mp4></video>

We do not consider about it?

What's more, I think transcript="URL" is better, since we can always link a html or text file using URL, no matter it is on the
Same server or different server of the page, but using a list of element id seems make page complex.

So I think using URL is better, and what is important difference or rational for 2 options of transcript?

Yang Sun
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Email: eric.sun@huawei.com
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
No 101,Software Avenue, Yuhua District,Nanjing 518129, P.R.China

This e-mail and its attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which 
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the 
information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial 
disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended 
recipient(s) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by 
phone or email immediately and delete it!

: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:mjs@apple.com] 
ʱ: 2012630 7:50
ռ: Edward O'Connor; Silvia Pfeiffer
: public-html@w3.org
: Re: ISSUE-194

Hi Ted & Silvia,

It seems to me that the two transcript attribute proposals are now much closer than our original starting point. They are intended to meet the same requirements and satisfy the same use cases, and have pretty similar syntax and usage. 

Currently the proposals at <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposal/ISSUE-194/TranscriptURL> and <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-2B> both propose a transcript attribute, one taking a URL, and the other taking a list of element IDs. However, neither provides direct rationale for why its form of the transcript attribute is different from the others. They focus more on why transcript support is useful at all, and on comparing to proposals no longer on the table.

I think it would improve both proposals if they gave rationale for why their form of the transcript attribute is better than the other.

It would be even better if we could reach consensus, given how close the two proposals now are, but I recognize that at some point we need to move on and make a decision if we do not have consensus.


On Jun 29, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> Eric Carlson, John Foliot, Silvia Pfeiffer and I had a call today in
> which we attempted to resolve the remaining differences between our
> ISSUE-194 proposals. Unfortunately, we were unable to come to a
> consensus position. Given this, I will keep both of the following Change
> Proposals on the table for an eventual poll on ISSUE-194:
>  Defer ISSUE-194 until HTML.next
>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-6

>  Mint a transcript attribute for the programmatic association of
>  transcripts with media elements
>    http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/User:Eoconnor/ISSUE-194-2B

> Thanks,
> Ted

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 08:01:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:24 UTC