- From: Frank Olivier <franko@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:49:08 +0000
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- CC: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, Ken Harrenstien <klh@google.com>
>>> If we buried the track information in a javascript API, we would >>> introduce an additional dependency and we would remove the ability to >>> simply parse the Web page to get at such information. For example, a >>> crawler would not be able to find out that there is a resource with >>> captions and would probably not bother requesting the resource for its >>> captions (or other text tracks). >> >> Surely, robots would just index the resources themselves? >Why download binary data of indeterminate length when you can already >get it out of the text of the Web page? Surely, robots would prefer to >get that information directly out of the Webpage and not have to go >and download gazillions of binary media files that they have to decode >to get information about them. >Right now, everybody who sees a video element in a HTML5 page simply >assumes that it consists of a video and a audio track and has no other >information in it. This is fine in the default case and in the default >case no extra resource description is probably necessary. But when we >actually do have a richer source, we need to expose that. But robots will not be downloading binary data of indeterminate length - they can download and parse a small header (in the vast majority of cases) using HTTP 1.1. Images and PDFs are indexed in this way already.
Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 16:49:42 UTC