- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:18:51 +1100
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > > On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > >> Hi Mark, >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: >> >> >>> The distinction between TextTrack and MediaTrack in the API under option (1) >>> seems strange to me. Text is just another kind of media, so shouldn't the >>> kind for each track be ( Audio | Video | Text ) rather than ( Media | Text ) >>> where Media = ( Audio | Video ) ? [This is how it is framed in option 3, >>> albeit up one level]. >> >> That is indeed one of the key questions we will have to answer: do we >> treat media tracks differently from text tracks. One the one hand they >> can all abstractly be regarded as "some time-aligned data for a >> video". On the other hand, the current specification of <track> does >> not allow child elements and the TimedTrack API is very specifically >> targeted at text tracks: the concept of text cues does not make sense >> for media tracks. Therefore it was necessary to introduce MediaTrack >> as an additional API. But indeed one of the questions we need to >> answer is whether that is a good idea or not. >> > > Would it be possible to define a MediaTrack class for the common stuff and re-define the existing TextTrack class to inherit from that (adding the cues stuff) ?. Or is it too late to make that kind of change to the TextTrack ? That is another option that we should experiment with. >>> If I read rightly this condition is not met in >>> (3), (4) and (6) right ? >> >> That's not quite right. The JavaScript API is still the same for both >> in-band and external media tracks in most of these cases. >> >> In case (3) we have AudioTrack and VideoTrack, which apply equally to >> in-band and external media tracks. > > Ah, ok - so is it a general assumption that whatever kind of objects are created according to the markup proposal, the same kind of objects are also added to the tracks list for in-band tracks (as is specified for text tracks) ? Yes, that is indeed what the document implies. The browser would take care of adding the in-band and external tracks to the correct list of objects, just as is prescribed for TextTracks right now. > I was wondering whether it made sense for in-band tracks to result in a complete HTMLMediaElement object being created in the tracks list: it seems you just need a much more limited object like TextTrack, with just the kind/label/language and mode. That is a concern of options (6) and (7) I suppose. Silvia. > > ...Mark >
Received on Friday, 11 February 2011 21:19:44 UTC