- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 10:21:51 +0100
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- CC: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Jack Jansen <Jack.Jansen@cwi.nl>, public-media-fragment@w3.org
Dear Silvia, > I would say that is really up to the container format to define. We > could recommend that there be a naming scheme such as video[0] ... > video[n] and audio[0] ... audio[n] to address multiple a/v tracks, > maybe even text[0] ... text[n]. But I don't think they make much sense > - it would be better the names chosen had some semantic meaning, such > as "video", "sign-language", "audio", "music", "speech", > "sound-effects", "audio annotations", "subtitles-en", subtitles-de", > "karaoke-en", "lyrics" etc. > > And .. yes, at some point somebody should have some standard names > for these - in particular for accessibility it would be nice to be > able to say through the protocol "I want no audio tracks, but video > and sign-language and all text tracks". > > Maybe there is a scheme that we need to develop, where the codec type > is also part of the naming, e.g. video.sign-language, > audio.annotations, video.music etc. We haven't thought much about > structure for describing tracks yet. > > What do people think? It may be beyond our charter, but I think it is definitively something that is worth to note, investigate if not bring a solution. Silvia, what about creating an issue in the tracker recording exactly your message? Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093 Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 09:22:32 UTC