W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2011

Re: ISSUE-142 (poster-alt): Chairs Solicit Proposals

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:55:01 +0900
Cc: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>, public-html@w3.org, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
Message-Id: <89D86CBC-2F30-479A-A44D-29B5BA767B62@apple.com>
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
perhaps 'proxyframe'?

just thinking out loud.

I also agree strongly with Philip and the counter-proposal, but am amenable to finding a different name if it helps avoid confusion.

On Jan 25, 2011, at 11:01 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:52 PM, John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu> wrote:
>> Paul Cotton wrote:
>>> ISSUE-142 (poster-alt): No alternative text description for
>>> video key frame (poster)
>>> Per the decision policy, at this time the Chairs would like
>>> to solicit volunteers to write Change Proposals for ISSUE-142:
>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/142
>>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html#escalation
>>> If no Change Proposals are written by January 26, 2011 this issue
>>> will be closed without prejudice.
>> Please find a Change Proposal for Issue 142 located at:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/PosterElement
>> as requested by the Chairs.
> I rather like the CP, though I'm definitely not a fan of the name.
> You argue that some people are confused by the current name of the
> @poster attribute, but the term "poster frame" seems to be
> well-established in general.  "firstframe" seems to imply that it can
> only hold the first frame of the video, which is incorrect.
> I'd prefer to stick with either <poster>, or perhaps <posterframe>.
> ~TJ

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 26 January 2011 01:55:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:30 UTC