- 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>
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