- From: Alexander Adolf <alexander.adolf@condition-alpha.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:00:12 +0200
- To: Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com>
- Cc: Brendan Long <B.Long@cablelabs.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, W3C Inband Tracks Reflector <public-inbandtracks@w3.org>
Dear Bob, On 2014-09-29, at 17:53 , Bob Lund <B.Lund@CableLabs.com> wrote: > [...] >> Wouldn't exposing captions as a video track + burned in captions create >> weird cases when you have multiple video tracks (multiple camera angles >> for example)? If the captions apply to all of the videos, then you'll >> have an explosion of video tracks instead of a simple list of video >> tracks and a simple list of captions to go with it. > > The current HTML spec doesnıt support a cue-less text track very well so > treating it as a video track with burned-in text is an alternative. This > could result in a large number of these tracks for media resources with N > video tracks and M cue-less text tracks (N x M). Now multiply that by a couple of more languages (I'm in the European market), and by a list of disabilities (hard of hearing, visually impaired, ...). That will make it four factors. > Another alternative is to enhance text track semantics to better > accommodate cue-less text tracks. One could define a new text track mode, > e.g. ³UARendered" defined as ³Indicates that the text track is active, the > user agent is actively displaying the data in the track but no cues are > active and no events are fired.² > > The only legal modes for such a track would be ³disabled² or ³UARendered². > [...] That would IMHO be the best solution. Many thanks and cheers, --alexander
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 16:00:39 UTC