- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:05:07 +1000
- To: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- CC: public-html@w3.org
Sander Tekelenburg wrote: > At 15:08 +1000 UTC, on 2007-07-28, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > [...] >> Does there really >> need to be an explicit association between the video and the link to >> it's textual alternative? > > Yes, otherwise there'd be no indication that it is an alternative. The only > way for a user to find that out would then be to consume both resources and > deduct that they were probably intended as equivalents. Explicit association is not the only way to indicate a relationship between items. >> Look at any video on YouTube, for example. There is no explicit >> association in the markup between the video and its metadata, such as >> the user who uploaded it, the description, tags, number of times it has >> been viewed or favourited, etc. > > None of those are equivalents of the video. They are complimentary. You're > mixing up very different things. I was demonstrating the implicit relationship between those and the video. It doesn't matter what they are; it certainly doesn't matter that none of them were alternative content. What matters is whether the user can understand the relationship between them. If it's possible to have a successful, implicit relationship between a video and it's description (or whatever else), it should also be possible between a video and a link to its alternative. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2007 07:05:26 UTC