- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:19:19 +0800
- To: "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Geoff Freed" <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, "Eric Carlson" <eric.carlson@apple.com>, "HTML Accessibility Task Force" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:46:00 +0800, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:36:09 +0800, Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> >> wrote: >> >>> GF: I prefer <trackgroup><track> as well-- grouping tracks by role >>> makes >>> the most sense to me. But I'm still confused about one thing after >>> reading >>> today's thread. From this markup, it looks to me like >>> <trackgroup><track> >>> also would permit multiple tracks of the same role to appear >>> simultaneously. >>> True? Playing simultaneous tracks of the same role is still what I'd >>> prefer (in addition to playing simultaneous tracks of differing roles, >>> of >>> course). >> >> My idea is that <trackgroup> be used to group mutually exclusive tracks, >> independently of their roles. I struggle to come up with an example >> when you >> would want it, but if you wrap each <track> in its own <trackgroup> then >> *all* tracks can be enabled simultaneously. It is of course up to the >> author >> to make groups that make sense. Power users could override this using >> user >> JavaScript or other browser extensions if they really want to. > > I'd actually prefer the opposite functionality - and that would also > be much more like what is in a media resource: > > <track>s in a list without <trackgroup> can be activated in parallel - > they are like non-grouped MP4 tracks. > > <track>s inside a <trackgroup> are mutually exclusive - only one of > them can be activated at any point in time. > > IIUC, that's how grouping works in MP4 and QuickTime and thus applying > this same principle here seems to make sense to me. Thus, if you > didn't want tracks to be active together, you'd pack them in a > trackgroup. Much easier than having to package each single <track> in > a <trackgroup> to enable them to be active in parallel. If I understand you, the only difference is the semantics when <trackgroup> is omitted. We can make either behavior the default. What it comes down to is what authors actually expect and which case is more common. I don't know anything about MPEG-4, but I do know that for any file with multiple text tracks I have opened in any media player (software or hardware), tracks have been mutually exclusive. We could sidestep the problem by making <trackgroup> mandatory, although I think it would be unfortunate if all authors have to pay the price for the very uncommon (in my guesstimate) practice of having multiple text tracks active in parallel. (Also, I don't want to come up with a UI for enabling multiple tracks when there is no grouping, as it would have to be something strange like a list of checkboxes in a context menu.) -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 16 February 2010 08:20:00 UTC