Re: Tech Discussions on the Multitrack Media (issue-152)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:47:22 +0100, Mark Watson <>  

> On Feb 16, 2011, at 12:02 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:31:47 +0100, Silvia Pfeiffer
>> <> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Jonas Sicking <>  
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Mark Watson <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Philip,
>>>>>> Just a quick note that the "alternative" vs "additional" distinction
>>>>>> is not always completely clear. Video with different camera angles
>>>>>> (gimmiky or not) could be considered as an alternative, or could be
>>>>>> rendered as picture-in-picture, or multiple thumbnail videos could
>>>>>> show beside the main video (some sports sites already do this kind  
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> thing).
>> Sure, but all of those modes should be achieved by the author making it
>> happen with CSS. At the risk of making a strawman argument, I honestly
>> can't see browsers allowing the user to change the rendering of the page
>> to achieve PiP or something like that when the author hasn't provided  
>> for
>> it, messing with the layout like that seems both weird and unlikely to  
>> be
>> useful. Of course we can have User JavaScript and User CSS to do that  
>> kind
>> of thing, though.
> I was assuming that the "author" of the content - who labels the tracks  
> - might not be the same as the "author" of the webpage that is rendering  
> the content. So the first author should not assume that (say) multiple  
> views are alternatives, because some webpages might be able to view them  
> both as PIP.

Since the tracks are labeled using the attribute of the <track> attribute,  
it will be the page author that has to do the work to support some  
specific video display, be that PiP, overlay or something else.

Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2011 15:18:29 UTC