Re: Absolute region positioning (was Re: Alternative approach to scrolling, with demos)

I'll also add that I have very strong reservations about making it a
JavaScript and video distributor issue, but a detailed explanation will
have to wait until I have time to write it up.

Sent from my mobile phone.  Please excuse any touchscreen-induced weirdness.
On May 9, 2014 10:50 AM, "Christian Vogler" <christian.vogler@gallaudet.edu>
wrote:

> Browser vendors are liable to comply with 79 CFR 103. That's been settled
> long ago and is not even under debate.
>
> Best wishes
> Christian
>
> Sent from my mobile phone.  Please excuse any touchscreen-induced
> weirdness.
> On May 9, 2014 10:47 AM, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:50 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On May 7, 2014, at 9:31 , Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 1:45 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I rather suspect that we’d be a lot further ahead if we hadn’t spent
>> a lot of time following mandates to emulate x08, honestly.
>> >>>
>> >>> But overall, I share your frustration and agree with the goals.  The
>> goal is great accessibility across the ecosystem.  Let’s get there.
>> >>
>> >> VTTRegion is emulating 708, though, and until now it seemed like you
>> >> were unwilling to make any changes to it. What do you think the path
>> >> towards great accessibility is, in more concrete terms?
>> >
>> > Well, two things.
>> >
>> > I wasn’t crazy about emulating 708, but we were adding features to get
>> in line with the FCC document, and it seemed that if that was the goal,
>> then simply emulating was the thing to do.  I am not at all sure I agree
>> with the implication that 708 is the perfection of captioning systems, and
>> its characteristics and quirks have to be carried into future systems, but
>> that’s where the FCC put us.
>>
>> Where exactly has the FCC put you? Isn't it the responsibility of the
>> video distributor to ensure that captions are of high enough quality?
>> Maybe they will claim that they can do nothing without full browser
>> support, but they would simply be mistaken and failing to make use of
>> the full Web platform. Do you believe that *browser vendors* will be
>> liable if they don't support a format which is a superset of 708?
>>
>> > The best thing we can do, in my opinion, is to have a simple stable
>> spec. that is widely deployed and widely used, so that content actually is
>> accessible because both the client system and the content support it.
>> >
>> > Yes, it’s worth making sure edge cases are covered and so on, but most
>> captioning is pretty vanilla, isn’t it?
>>
>> Maybe this is a straw man, but it kind of sounds like you want to get
>> this 708 legality over with and focus on the vanilla stuff. I think
>> that if some features are legally required then we should still try to
>> make them as well integrated into vanilla WebVTT as we possibly can.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>