W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Shifting gears for a second (was RE: Codecs for <video> and <audio>)

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'Maciej Stachowiak'" <mjs@apple.com>, "'Sam Ruby'" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Doug Schepers'" <schepers@w3.org>, "'Robert O'Callahan'" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "'David Singer'" <singer@apple.com>, "'Joe D Williams'" <joedwil@earthlink.net>, <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <115401c9fb8a$9c1329d0$d4397d70$@edu>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> If you're willing to encode video files twice, the following markup
> [1] will provide embedded video with CSS stylability and a consistent
> JavaScript API in the latest versions of Firefox and Safari, and in
> upcoming versions of Chrome and Opera, and likely in other upcoming
> WebKit-based browsers for mobile platforms:
> 
> <video>
>      <source src="example-video.mp4" type="video/mp4" />
>      <source src="example-video.ogv" type="video/ogg" />
> </video>
> 

This observer is, of course, concerned how/where the captioning piece is
in this example, and further where captioning is in the current spec.  

In an earlier note from Silvia Pfeiffer,
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jun/0667.html] she
noted that:
 
	"... it has been decided that the first version of HTML5 <video>
(and <audio>) will not have an in-built solution for captions, audio
annotations and the like, because it is possible to do such with
javascript and external files."

Really?  Who actually 'decided' this, as I for one would certainly not
take that lying down.  Was the WAI PF consulted on this piece of decision
making?  Or was it once again a back-room, IRC 'consensus' of a few?

JF
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 03:02:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC