- From: Philip TAYLOR <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:08:54 +0100
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- CC: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > Actually, I would correct Dave: While <video>/<audio> supports some kind > of fallback, the draft says that this isn't its purpose: > > " it is intended for older Web browsers which do not support video, > so that legacy video plugins can be tried, or to show text to the users > of these older browser informing them of how to access the video > contents. Note: In particular, this content is not fallback content > intended to address accessibility concerns." [1] Yes, but the point I (and others) keep trying to make is that this is what <stress>the editor's draft</> says : it is up to this WG to discuss this, and then to agree (by consensus) whether or not this is the best use of fallback content. If, every time someone points out that some aspect of the current design is unsatisfactory, the reaction is "but that's what the draft says", then we may as well all shut up and go home. The whole point of this WG is to /challenge/ the draft, whenever/wherever it appears less than ideal : only by so doing will we (a) remit our brief, as WG members, and (b) have any hope that the final version of the specification will will represent the best possible thinking at this time. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 20:09:33 UTC