Re: Issue 142: Video Poster (or, what's in a name?)

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:03:04 -0000, Eric Carlson <eric.carlson@apple.com>  
wrote:

> Hi Gregory -
>
> On Jan 6, 2011, at 7:13 AM, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>
>> my 2 cents (U.S.) on the "poster" controversy
>>
>> perhaps the biggest problem with "poster" is the attribute's name,,
>> "poster" -- if it is not meant to be viewed/rendered, why, then,
>> call it a "poster" -- seems that the semantic problem is strictly
>> with HTML5 and its inappropriate use of the word "poster" which
>> has caused us to loose valuable cycles debating over an error in
>> the HTML5 spec itself -- if it isn't meant for human consumption
>> and not meant to be rendered to a user, then it isn't really a
>> "poster" and a more adequate attribute name needs to be used,
>> instead of "poster"
>>
>   The "poster" *is* rendered, just like the first frame of the video  
> file is rendered when there is no poster attribute.
>
>   The poster is meant to be a placeholder for the video, the image that  
> is shown until the video begins playing. Again, just like the first  
> frame of the video file is shown when there is no poster attribute.

It's a shame that if it would presumably be too confusing to renamed  
poster to be "placeholder" as in

<video src=kittens.webm placeholder=kittens.jpg>

because (apparently) video producers are used to the word "poster" and web  
developers are getting used to the placeholder attribute on form inputs.

Why can't this work?

<video src=kittens.webm poster=kittens.jpg alt="two lovely kittens in a  
basket">

with the alt being the short textual alternative that can be used to  
seduce people to click the video (presumably, what the explicit poster or  
first frame is to do), at which point the full glory subtitles/ tracks etc  
are unleashed?

Bruce not-representing-Opera

Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 16:29:27 UTC