Re: Change Proposal for Issue 194

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