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

: : ISSUE-194

From: Sunyang (Eric) <eric.sun@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 07:21:09 +0000
To: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9254B5E6361B1648AFC00BA447E6E8C32AEB70E6@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
See inline


: Edward O'Connor [mailto:eoconnor@apple.com] 
ʱ: 201276 5:30
ռ: public-html@w3.org
: Re: : ISSUE-194

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].

[yang] Ok, I see, I think both 2, and 3 are possible, so can we have a harmonized solution include both, because both seem reasonable ? Or we have to choose between them? I see you are Silvia are editors of proposal 1 to defer it, while Silvia is editor of proposal 3 to adopt it using transcriptURL,

> 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.
[yang] no I am reference to http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ISSUE-194/Research#2C_-_aria-describedby

< video src=video.mp4 aria-describedby="foo"></video>
<a href=transcript.html hreflang=en
   id=foo>English language transcript</a>

but I know they are different, 194-2C talking about using aira-describedby , but al/longdesc just a paragraph of text.

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.

[yang] Sorry, I realize that you are ted ;), and right this is option 1 in the list. Ignore my 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].

[yang] yes, indirect link is good for UA not support video element.
      But as I know in fact every browser now have support video element.
      So I still think indirect link is more complex.

> 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!

[yang] I think we should firstly decide whether or not we need this feature, then
We will select between [2][3] or combine them. So people have already support do it


Received on Friday, 6 July 2012 07:23:17 UTC

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