- From: Brendan Long <B.Long@cablelabs.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:27:33 +0000
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-inbandtracks@w3.org" <public-inbandtracks@w3.org>
On 09/28/2014 04:11 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >>> It's likely better exposed add a video track with burnt-in captions. I'd >>> recommend that's how it would be shown in the track list. When activated, >>> both the default video track and the captions track would then be rendered. >> This pushes the interface complexity somewhere else, but not somewhere >> helpful! I'd argue that the spec should get as close as possible to matching >> the media element model and using text tracks for this purpose is better >> than not doing so. > Why is it not helpful? From the JS and user's point of view, that's > exactly what such a track is: a video track with burnt in captions. > Since it's now exposed in the list of video tracks, it can be selected > and activated. That's all that's required for such a track. That's as > useful as it gets, isn't it? Wouldn't exposing captions as a video track + burned in captions create weird cases when you have multiple video tracks (multiple camera angles for example)? If the captions apply to all of the videos, then you'll have an explosion of video tracks instead of a simple list of video tracks and a simple list of captions to go with it.
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 15:28:04 UTC