- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:44:46 +0200
- To: "Dave Singer" <singer@apple.com>, aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>, public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:52:00 +0200, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > At 23:21 +0200 2/07/07, aurélien levy wrote: >> Is anybody have ideas about this issue : >> >> - Actualy i see no way to have synchronized caption and >> audiodescription on video element (except from directly embed caption >> or audiodescription in the video itself) or is the media + source >> element here to achieve things like that ? why did not you take the >> SMIL audio and text element ? >> >> Aurélien > > The model is that the content itself either has some kind of > accessibility "burned in" (e.g. burned-in captions), or can adapt itself > to an accessibility need. That's it. I think it would be a mistake for > HTML to try to get into the realm of media layup languages, file > formats, synchronization requirements, and so on. These are properly > the domain of SMIL and media systems. > > So yes, the media source is supposed to take care of this. One could > reasonably embed a SMIL file as the target of a video element, for > example. > > Makes sense? In a scenario where there is no known format in the first place, how does that impact the cost of making burned-in accessibility? Is it easy to transfer from format to format, as the video encoding is? If we don't mandate some format, then how many do we expect to have to provide? cheers -- Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk chaals@opera.com Catch up: Speed Dial http://opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 12:45:06 UTC