- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 14:38:25 +1000
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> Three issues I have taken out of this discussion that I think are still >> open to discuss and potentially define in the spec: >> >> * How to expose in-band extra audio and video tracks from a multi-track >> media resource to the Web browser? I am particularly thinking here about >> the use cases Lachlan mentioned: offering stereo and surround sound >> alternatives, audio descriptions, audio commentaries or multiple >> languages, and would like to add sign language tracks to this list. This >> is important to solve now, since it will allow the use of audio >> descriptions and sign language, two important accessibility >> requirements. > > I think this is now resolved. Let me know if there's still something open > here. Ha, yes! 21 months later and it's indeed solved through the same mechanism that synchronisation of multiple audio/video tracks is solved. >> * How to associate and expose such extra audio and video tracks that are >> provided out-of-band to the Web browser? This is probably a next-version >> issue since it's rather difficult to implement in the browser. It >> improves on meeting accessibility needs, but it doesn't stand in the way >> of providing audio descriptions and sign language - just makes it easier >> to use them. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. It was the difference between in-band tracks and separate files. Also solved by now. >> * Whether to include a multiplexed download functionality in browsers >> for media resources, where the browser would do the multiplexing of the >> active media resource with all the active text, audio and video tracks? >> This could be a context menu functionality, so is probably not so much a >> need to include in the HTML5 spec, but it's something that browsers can >> consider to provide. And since muxing isn't quite as difficult a >> functionality as e.g. decoding video, it could actually be fairly cheap >> to implement. > > I agree that this seems out of scope for the spec. Thread closed. :-) Cheers, Silvia.
Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 21:38:25 UTC