- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:16:35 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "public-html-a11y@w3.org" <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Wed, 30 Mar 2011, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> However, for in-band audio and video elements that are not exposed in
> this way, that is certainly an issue. Such tracks would just be exposed
> and displayed by the browser they cannot be controlled from JavaScript
> unless listed in a slave <audio> or <video> element. So, since it is in
> the control of the author to expose them, it is probably sufficient.
>
> For example: to get all the audio tracks that have been exposed in slave
> audio elements for a video with id="v1", you would do:
>
> audioTracks = new Array[];
> index = 0;
> for (i in document.getElementsByTagname("audio")) {
> if (i.timeline == "v1") {
> audioTracks[index] = i;
> index++;
> }
> }
>
> Not elegant, but it works...
Video is harder since it involves assigning a playback region, so I agree
with the reasoning above for video tracks, more or less. But for audio
tracks it seems exposing them is fine. That's what both Microsoft's
proposal and the MediaController proposal do.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 01:17:13 UTC