- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:10:06 +1100
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:49:16 +0800, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:20:41 +0800, Silvia Pfeiffer >>> <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >> >> So far I have only regarded "role" as a valid means of creating >> groups, but I'd be more than happy to retract that and make it more >> flexible in the way that you are proposing: any tracks can be grouped >> and thus made mutually exclusive. > > I didn't mean it as a proposal, I though this followed from how flattening > the <track><source> example would work. In any case if we agree that > grouping shouldn't be based (only) on role="" then all is well. Yup, fine. Happy for that flexibility, which more closely matches what MPEG/QT do anyway. >>> That makes <trackgroup><track> and >>> <track><source> almost identical apart from naming and the minimized >>> form. >>> >>> In both cases: >>> >>> The inner element references an external text track, possibly with a >>> language and role. >> >> Yes. And if used without a grouping element, they are not mutually >> exclusive, but can be potentially active together. Notice how that >> required introduction of an "active" attribute. > > It's not possible to omit the grouping element in <track><source>, because > that would put <source> directly as a child of <video>. That's a difference > in the minimized form, but let's find common ground on the actual > outer/inner elements first... Oh, the idea was that the <track> element would work like the <video> element: it would either have a set of sources or not. But I'm happy to use trackgroup and track instead in the way proposed. >>> The outer element makes the children mutually exclusive. Language and >>> role >>> may be specified on this element as well, in which case it is inherited >>> by >>> the children. >> >> Yes, makes the children mutually exclusive, but the partner tracks >> still parallel and potentially active together. So, the children will >> actually also need an @active attribute. > > Sure, it's like <select><option selected>, except multiple selection isn't > possible. Yup. More like a radiogroup. >> So, maybe this could mean: >> >> <video src="video.ogv"> >> <track src="cc.en.srt" srclang="en" role="CC" active> >> <track src="tad.en.srt" srclang="en" role="TAD"> >> <trackgroup role="SUB"> >> <track src="subs.de.srt" srclang="de"> >> <track src="subs.sv.srt" srclang="sv"> >> <track src="subs.jp.srt" srclang="jp"> >> </trackgroup> >> </video> >> >> the CC, the TAD, and one of the SUB tracks can be active together. >> >> I think this may be the compromise we are after? > > IIUC, the difference here from what I was proposing is that when > <trackgroup> is omitted, each <track> is implicitly in a group of its own > and can activated in parallel. Yes. > This requires <trackgroup> to be used in the typical case of multi-language > subtitles, but I don't think it's unreasonably verbose. It might also be a > good thing that *not* using <trackgroup> doesn't implicitly put everything > in a group as in my proposal. Yes. > In any event I think the above is better than <track><source> and am not > sure if I'd want to change the semantics of the minimized form or not. > > For the record, I like enabled="" better as the on/off-attribute, as it's a > bit more neutral-sounding. Ok, done. Maybe we have converged? Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Wednesday, 17 February 2010 07:11:04 UTC