- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 10:20:17 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 02:51:45 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 08/07/2011, at 4:55 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> >> wrote: >>> OK, the second is not true. But if you're doing it like this, why >>> bother >>> with cues at all? Wouldn't it be cleaner to have *only* a root <nav> >>> with >>> possible <nav> children? Using ranges for some chapters and cues for >>> other >>> is not very appealing, IMO. >> >> Agreed. The markup in the wiki is very confusing, imo, since >> top-level chapters are indicated in a completely different way from >> subchapters. >> > > In my mind, the single-level subdivision as in DVD chapters is the 80% > use case. Even with many Daisy files I have only seen single level > subdivision. This subdivision would also be the one that I would > visually represent in the player. I have an experiment at > http://html5videoguide.net/demos/google_io/3_navigation/ with chapter > markers on the timeline. > > So, the hierarchical navigation - as much as there is a need for it - > could just stay within the cue. > > That seemed an appropriate solution that wouldn't need any new HTML > features. I'm not wedded to this solution though. <nav> in WebVTT and new logic in getCueAsHTML are new features :) Given that we all agree that this is a <20% use case, doing something less intrusive but slightly less author-friendly seems rather reasonable... (As a side note, having all chapters be explicit ranges makes it easier to say "play this chapter and pause when done", possibly via Media Fragments #id or #chapter.) -- Philip Jägenstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 08:20:39 UTC