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

Re: [media] change proposals for issue-152

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:53:20 +1100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinUjTh9D6C+AHHnNFYcG7dZNdmpRGw_4ftSGGHM@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Cc: HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Hi Sean,

I don't think we had all agreed on pulling <track> out into a
stand-alone tag. I certainly disagree with that move.

So, given the lack of time, we will certainly have to submit both
proposals now and leave it to the chairs to decide how to move on. I
don't think we've finished discussions on this topic though and
believe that given time we could still converge. But we'll now have to
wait and see what the chairs will allow to happen.

Cheers,
Silvia.


On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> [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.
>
> Cheers,
> Silvia.
>
>
> [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 04:54:12 UTC

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