- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:28:51 +1000
- To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> <a href="url">Transcript</a> >>>> >>>> >>>> You can still do that. In the worst browser, it will make no difference, but >>>> it seems likely that the best browsers will aim to provide something better >>>> if they get something more than that. At the very least, it is pretty >>>> straightforward to write an extension to handle more useful markup... >>> >>> Yes - that's more or less my point. The above works, and can be made >>> better in shiny new browsers, so why not use it? >> >> This works, too: >> >> <transcript><a href="url">Transcript</a></transcript> >> >> and can be made even better in shiny new browsers than just the link alone. > > How so? > > AFAICT whatever browsers can do with that, they can do the same with: > > <video transcript=t></video> > <a id=t href="url">Transcript</a> I just listed a whole swag of advantages in a previous email - I'm not going to repeat myself. It's the same kind of advantages that you get with a <article> element over a <div> element. Incidentally, I just had a discussion with some Mozillians and a suggestion came up to re-use the @mediagroup attribute on <video> and <transcript> to link the transcript and the <video> together. I think that's worthwhile exploring further. In particular since I see the <transcript> element as an element in its own right and not just dependent on <video>. Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 02:29:41 UTC