Re: Feature Strings

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Jeff Schiller wrote:
> > >
> > > "Content may be provided inside the video element so that older Web 
> > > browsers, which do not support video, can display text to the user 
> > > informing them of how to access the video contents. User agents 
> > > should not show this fallback content to the user."
> 
> I was just suggesting to make the last sentence a little clearer because 
> in the previous sentence of that paragraph you refer to "older Web 
> browsers".  But I get your point.
> 
> Another suggested re-wording might be:
> 
> "Content may be provided inside the video element.  User agents should 
> not show this content to the user.  The contents of the video element 
> are provided as fallback content so that older Web browsers, which do 
> not support video, can display text to the user informing them of how to 
> access the video contents."

I'm tweaked the paragraph a little to address the issue and some other 
things that are wrong with that paragraph. I'm not really conviced the new 
text is perfect either though.


On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Smylers wrote:
> 
> What about text-only browsers such as Lynx?  They may become 
> HTML5-aware, and so know what the <video> element is.  But they may not 
> be able to display the video (perhaps a link to it, at best); does it 
> make sense that despite not showing the video they also not display the 
> fallback content?

Yes; such user agents would still at least display links to open the video 
stream in a video tool if possible. I would hope Lynx could support 
displaying subtitles in the video stream, or some such. The fallback 
content isn't going to be any better than the UA could do.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2007 04:57:13 UTC