- From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 16:27:09 -0700
- To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>, "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: "'Henri Sivonen'" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>, "'Edward O'Connor'" <hober0@gmail.com>, <public-html@w3.org>, "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com>
> The fact that HTML is used in a wide variety of contexts ... RIght, this timed track is not a big deal. Well, how to expose the info to the DOM, may be. Sure the video format people should decide upon a form that all dedicated higest perfomance most features branded web/home/broadcast/hobby/professional video player can play, but this is more like the basic question of which basic controls (play, stop, etc.) should be exposed in HTML5 user code. Why not opt for the simplist possible markup: <video ...> ... <track whatever> <caption frametime='00:00:00.00' string='Start of Show'> [one capiton for each time] .... </track> </video> I haven't seen all the examples so maybe there are better names but the main idea is to expose info to the host web browser by placing some content in the DOM so the 'native' video player of the host html5 browser or optionally the 'native' video player itself, or optionally some acessibiity tools can deal with it. More detailed expressions are natural because the majority of the interest and effort for making this a 'complete' standards-track solution for adding captions/interactivty to video comes from the people making high-end integrated solutions where all this stuff is metasemantics included in the video file and the video player that processes this stuff is more like a high performance 'plugin' as embed or object content than the vision of a competent but understood to be limited 'native' video player that is able to play some minimum formats which may optionally include captioning/interactivity defined by some content in the html5 user code. So, for html5, keep this real simple to implement and access via the DOM. Let those folks making big time commercial plugins deal with the big problems and history far future and all that and just give me something that I can use that a simple html5 <video> element can provide. Thanks to All and Best Regards, Joe ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> To: "'Jonas Sicking'" <jonas@sicking.cc> Cc: "'Henri Sivonen'" <hsivonen@iki.fi>; "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>; "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>; "'Philippe Le Hegaret'" <plh@w3.org>; "'Edward O'Connor'" <hober0@gmail.com>; <public-html@w3.org>; "'Anne van Kesteren'" <annevk@opera.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 10:20 PM Subject: RE: Timed tracks Of course, because a specific kind of device or component or agent is a source of legitimate use cases does not imply that every aspect of the operation of the device is in scope; otherwise we might be talking about voltage regulators and the electrical properties of HDMI interfaces. The fact that HTML is used in a wide variety of contexts is a strong argument for modularity and separation of concerns, not of leaving topics that *can* be orthogonal in scope. And I think that's an issue that was resolved back in February. Larry -----Original Message----- From: Jonas Sicking [mailto:jonas@sicking.cc] Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:38 AM To: Larry Masinter Cc: Henri Sivonen; Julian Reschke; Ian Hickson; Philippe Le Hegaret; Edward O'Connor; public-html@w3.org; Anne van Kesteren Subject: Re: Timed tracks On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote: > # To me, your question seems totally irrelevant to this WG. > # If the $99.99 device contains a Web browser, then yes. > # If it doesn't contain a Web browser, the capabilities of > # the device are not relevant to <video>. > > The working group is chartered to work on a definition of the > Hypertext Markup Language and its related APIs, not on the > definition of a "Web browser". > > A device which can parse conforming HTML, find appropriate > <video> elements within it, and then play the video, > with captions, is a perfectly acceptable use case for > determining requirements for the HyperText Markup Language. For what it's worth, I'm happy to keep the work on WebSRT in the WhatWG working group. We can always submit it to the W3C once its a more stable proposal. That would seem allow us to work on the technical aspects of the spec in parallel with solving the complex question of which working group should handle it. / Jonas
Received on Sunday, 16 May 2010 23:28:50 UTC