W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

Re: ISSUE-194: full-transcript - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 22:27:53 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2=UV5wdUaqQ3Cg8bD2o_NTyYxULFWjvQc5Dz6r3jbLvGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
This is a good discussion.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I am not sure that these are necessarily the same thing at all. A transcript is IMO a static untimed merged representation of the information in in the caption and description tracks. A longdesc would probably be something more along the lines of a synopsis or précis. I think we need mechanisms that can handle both of these use cases.

A summary is metadata and more than the sighted get if it's hidden in
a such a field. It would be a problem if we encouraged such
publication approaches. Such text should be recommended to be
published as on-page text and referenced with aria-describedby.

> I agree that it makes sense to wait and see how the discussion on generic 'off page text' pans out; it might be for example that we end up with both an attribute and an element e.g. @longdesc and <longdesc> (following the precedent of @src and <source>) where the latter admits a richer set of adornments, possibly including some sort of role attribute which can distinguish between a transcript and a synopsis, amongst other uses for off-page text.

Do I understand correctly that this is a suggestion to allow several
long description documents to be associated to a video? Do you have
use cases? Why would video need something like this an no other

Received on Thursday, 15 March 2012 11:28:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC