- From: Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:36:27 -0800
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Michael Smith <mike@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Mar 10, 2010, at 8:34 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2010, at 8:25 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: > >> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:10:01 +0800, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >>>> Is the intention that we specify a track selection algorithm with exact >>>> rules for which track to enable based on settings, or should this be left to >>>> UAs to override ad-hoc? >>> >>> I don't think anything is prescribed to UAs in the HTML spec - if at >>> all we can only make recommendations on what override rules a UA uses. >>> No? >> >> There are very clear rules for resource selection for <source> and no provision for the UA to override this. I'm asking if the intention is to specify with the same level of detail which <track> to select and not allow UAs to override this, or if we should simply say that the UA can do whatever it wants. I don't like the latter because it will certainly lead to poor interoperability. > > I would prefer if the rules for <track> are as precise as the ones for <source>, but I also think that this level of detail can wait until after the proposal is submitted to the HTML WG. > I agree with Maciej and Philip, we should have precise rules for <track> selection. eric
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2010 15:37:00 UTC