- From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:30:00 -0700
- To: public-html@w3.org
Hi Sunyang, You wrote: > Do you mean that WG should choose between > "defer 194-6 to HTML.Next" and "mint transcript with media element"? I expect there will be 3 Change Proposals to choose between: the two you mention[1][2], and a third (Silvia's "Introduction of a @transcript=URL attribute" proposal)[3]. > But it seems that 194-6 will no change to HTML specification, so you > want to defer what to HTML.NEXT? Right, the [1] proposal advocates deferring the addition of a mechanism for programmatic association of transcripts with media elements in HTML to HTML.next. > And the transcript will be integrated with media element, right? Yes, the [2] and [3] proposals advocate such a feature, though with a somewhat different design. > And how about 194-2C, what's the relationship between 2C and > alt/longdesc of media element? I assume you're referring to [2]. This is a proposal for ISSUE-194, not for ISSUE-203. Sunyang wrote: > It seems ted mentioned first option 194-6 is > > <a rel=transcript href=transcript.html hreflang=en > >English language transcript</a> > <video src=video.mp4></video> > > We do not consider about it? I'm not sure what you're quoting here. I think you're referring to how the proposal at [1] mentions that authors can currently use a combination of WAI-ARIA attributes and RDFa or Microdata to mark up transcript links. I don't think I understand the question. > What's more, I think transcript="URL" is better, since we can always > link a html or text file using URL, no matter it is on the > Same server or different server of the page, but using a list of element > id seems make page complex. Both nonzero-edit proposals ([2] and [3]) allow for linking to HTML or text files, regardless of what server is hosting what. Any method of indirection will be more complex than a direct link, but there are several other design considerations that argue for using an indirect link for these use cases, as I argue in [2]. > So I think using URL is better, and what is important difference or > rational for 2 options of transcript? I hope the text of all three change proposals is clear enough to establish the design tradeoffs of the different approaches. If it's not, please provide feedback so Silvia and/or I can improve our proposals! Thanks, Ted
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2012 21:30:27 UTC