W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-a11y@w3.org > March 2011

RE: [media] change proposals for issue-152

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 02:56:35 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8DEFC0D8B72E054E97DC307774FE4B913FAF481F@DB3EX14MBXC313.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
[4] Is an interesting CP, it does however fail to capture one fundamental premise of the proposal that we had on the table when I left at 2pm. Namely that the handling of text tracks should be as far as possible the same as the handling of a media track. This would imply under this formulation that <track> (meaning a text track) should be promoted to the same level as audio and video, and with the same model, so no it doesn't have my agreement that it is an equivalent to [1]

I am editing a copy of the page with those changes.
-----Original Message-----
From: public-html-a11y-request@w3.org [mailto:public-html-a11y-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Silvia Pfeiffer
Sent: 22 March 2011 00:47
To: HTML Accessibility Task Force
Subject: [media] change proposals for issue-152

Hi media subgroup,

A quick status update on where we stand wrt change proposals for issue-152.

Over the weekend we have worked on a change proposal, which we called
the "San Diego Thought Experiment", see [1].

It is based on the ideal markup representation of a multitrack media
resource, where external resources are represented in markup as tracks
of a main resource. As we worked through the markup changes, the
IDL/JavaScript API changes, the CSS changes and the rendering
approaches, we realized that the implementation of this ideal
representation would replicate far too many existing codepaths and at
the same time introduce complex layout requirements that would be
unrealistic to expect to be implemented.

We came to the conclusion that the approach of keeping separate
<video> and <audio> elements around and synchronizing them to a
"master" element (i.e. the "main" resource) would be far easier to
implement and just as powerful. So, we picked up the existing option 6
[2] and continued designing from there to see if that would be
achievable in a simpler manner.

Note that in the meantime Ian has also submitted a change proposal
which is highly interesting [3].

Since Eric and I promised to put the change proposal that was the
outcome of the F2F discussions together, we've worked on this today
and it's now in a readable state [4]. We are going to submit that
proposal as an additional change proposal to the main working group
late today. I don't know if it has general task force approval and
it's too late to do a poll for this. But we certainly want to submit a
change proposal within the deadline. Others should be free to submit
their own if they disagree.


[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API#.2810.29_HTML_Accessibility_Task_Force_proposal_-_.22The_San_Diego_Thought_Experiment.22
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Media_API#.286.29_Synchronize_separate_media_elements_through_attributes
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0436.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Media_Multitrack_Change_Proposal
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 02:57:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:53 UTC