- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:26:25 +0000
- To: public-texttracks@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=28511 John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|WORKSFORME |--- --- Comment #3 from John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> --- (In reply to David Singer from comment #2) > suggest that while there is something to render, there is nowhere to render > it (hence, abort). if captioning of audio is desired, the media element > needs a rendering area, and hence needs to be <video> Hi David, If one were to write < audio controls> (as opposed to just < audio>), then the user-agent would render something - it would render controls. I must disagree that we must ask authors to use < video> when they have an audio track that also provides captions for the end user, as it is both counter-intuitive for authoring, and factually incorrect as well. We should ensure that the code we ask for matches what the majority of authors would produce natively. Reopening until we find consensus, which may be that this section (which is/could-be as much about the user-agent and rendering captions in *any* format) be removed from a spec about a time-stamp format. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 20 April 2015 14:26:27 UTC