Re: Change Proposals toward Issue-9: "how accessibility works for <video> is unclear"

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Joe D Williams <> wrote:
>> The choice of @name is on purpose to avoid clashing with @title,
> That is a fine reason but @name is already used in other markup for embedded
> content. Existing use of @name seems more associated with and used more like
> @id since it seems to be moving towards associating with some sort of
> context identification. Anyway, I would say that @name is already taken for
> I would consider a different purpose.

What other markup are you referring to that is already using @name?
@name is not a global attribute like @id or @title (see
It has a different meaning with every element. So, it is perfectly
fine to use it here IMO.

>> Here, we chose @name to expose a given identifier for a track inside
>> multitrack media files or provide an identifier for external tracks.
> For "inside" tracks this might be a simple string; Is @trackname taken?
> probably "external" track (s?) might be a uri? so should have its own
> attribute?
> In fact, why not include the @name attr in <video> and <audio> since @name
> in other elements is associated with access by host DOM scripts?

@trackname is possible, but I don't follow why @name should be a problem.

>> Consistency across the API made us chose this attribute name also for the
>> <track> element.
> Sorry if this is a late comment, but please let's look for consistency
> across the api for all elements, especially, in this case, other embedded
> elements

The consistency that I am talking about is a consistency within the
same element. I think that goes over consistency across different
elements, even if they are elements of the same class. I have not seen
a requirement anywhere for reusing attribute names across elements
other than the global attributes linked to above.


Received on Monday, 12 April 2010 06:22:26 UTC