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

(unknown charset) Re: 答复: ISSUE-194

From: (unknown charset) Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:30:00 -0700
To: (unknown charset) public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <m2k3yhc2w7.fsf@eoconnor.apple.com>
Hi Sunyang,

You wrote:

> Do you mean that WG should choose between 
> "defer 194-6 to HTML.Next" and "mint transcript with media element"?

I expect there will be 3 Change Proposals to choose between: the two you
mention[1][2], and a third (Silvia's "Introduction of a @transcript=URL
attribute" proposal)[3].

> But it seems that 194-6 will no change to HTML specification, so you
> want to defer what to HTML.NEXT?

Right, the [1] proposal advocates deferring the addition of a mechanism
for programmatic association of transcripts with media elements in HTML
to HTML.next.

> And the transcript will be integrated with media element, right?

Yes, the [2] and [3] proposals advocate such a feature, though with a
somewhat different design.

> And how about 194-2C, what's the relationship between 2C and
> alt/longdesc of media element?

I assume you're referring to [2]. This is a proposal for ISSUE-194, not
for ISSUE-203.

Sunyang wrote:

> 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?

I'm not sure what you're quoting here. I think you're referring to how
the proposal at [1] mentions that authors can currently use a
combination of WAI-ARIA attributes and RDFa or Microdata to mark up
transcript links. I don't think I understand the question.

> 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.

Both nonzero-edit proposals ([2] and [3]) allow for linking to HTML or
text files, regardless of what server is hosting what.

Any method of indirection will be more complex than a direct link, but
there are several other design considerations that argue for using an
indirect link for these use cases, as I argue in [2].

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

I hope the text of all three change proposals is clear enough to
establish the design tradeoffs of the different approaches. If it's not,
please provide feedback so Silvia and/or I can improve our proposals!


Thanks,
Ted
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 21:30:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:33 UTC