- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 09:54:10 +0200
- To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>, public-html-a11y@w3.org
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:07:32 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jul 2010, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> > >> > But youtube, for example, does have annotations with hyperlinks in >> > them. They're not captions, but they're still timed text content that >> > contain hyperlinks. >> >> Do we need YouTube-style annotation to be a built-in feature of the >> <video> element? Or would it be sufficient to make the <video> element >> capable enough that YouTube or other sites could build similar features >> themselves out of the primitives provided > > Indeed it seems unlikely that YouTube would want to use a built-in > feature for the presentational aspects of this, since doing so would > limit > what they could do in the future to whatever we supported in the spec. > This is the kind of things for which I think it would make more sense to > provide hooks to allow Web page authors to do whatever they want with the > <video> timing model merely being used as infrastructure. > As an implementor, I obviously agree. A simpler spec means fewer browser-specific bugs. -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2010 07:55:02 UTC