- From: Erik Vorhes <erik@textivism.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 14:07:01 -0500
On Sat, May 9, 2009, at 2:16 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > The issue is that not all browsers have significant configs (I'm > thinking of mobile browsers here), and I don't believe their inability > to provide such a choice to the user should make them nonconforming. If a UA is incapable of audio output, by extension it conforms to wording that uses MUST. (That is, it mutes audio by default, as it provides no means to play audio.) So I'm not sure this is an actual issue. In the illogical event that an audio-free UA wouldn't conform to this requirement, surely it's possible to word the specification in such a way that exempts those browsers from the requirement. > As well, recall that the majority browser for 'unsophisticated' users > is still IE6 or 7, and IE8 still lacks any support for <video> at all What does the lack of support for <video> in IE 6-8 have to do with an argument against requiring UAs to mute audio in <audio> and <video>? Because those browsers exist without support for those elements, it falls upon developers, content producers, et al., to make a good-faith effort to provide accessible (and screenreader-friendly) content; the wording of the HTML5 spec doesn't change current conditions, nor should it be expected to. Thanks, Erik Vorhes
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 12:07:01 UTC