RFC: sHTML Video Thumbnailing

Hello,

This is an RFC -- Request for Comments.  So I'm looking for
people's
opinions, comments, and criticisms on all this.


Note... this is NOT a Microformat.  Nor an attempt to define
a new
Microformat.  This is about semantic HTML (sHTML) markup.

(Hopefully this isn't too off-topic for this mailing list. 
I'm just
looking to tap this group for comments on this.)



BACKGROUND

I'm developing some software for a client that will (among
other
things) display video thumbnails within HTML.

I've actually used this form of semantic HTML before. 
However, until
this, none of it was publicly released.

(Also, with this software, once it is out there, I won't be
in control
of the software... and thus not able to make corrections to
the markup
later.)



SEMANTIC HTML

The way I'm planning on marking these up is using a
combination of 2
built in HTML elements.

The <q> element and the <img> element.

Conceptually, I'm considering a video thumbnail to be
analogous to
quoted text.  In other words, I'm conceptually considering
video
thumbnails to be a "quote" of a video.

So, for example, we would have something like...

    <q cite="http://exam
ple.com/video"><img
src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" /></q>

Or if you want that pretty-printed...

    <q cite="http://example.
com/thevideo">
        <img src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" />
    </q>



CITING VIDEO

In this, I make use of the <q> element's
"cite" attribute to refer to
the "video" where the thumbnail is taken from.

This "cite" attribute might refer to a binary
video file.  But could
also refer to a "blog post" or "vlog
post" in which the video is
embedded.

For the purposes of this, I'm considering some (but not all)
HTML
pages to be "video".  So.. for example, an HTML
"vlog post" is
considered to be "video".



TYPES OF THUMBNAILS

Really there are different sources a thumbnail can come
from.

A thumbnail can come from a video.  But it could also come
from a
(static) image.

So... to distinguish between these different types of
thumbnails, I've
added a class-video to the <q> element.  (I suppose if
you have a
thumbnail from a static image you could add class-image...
but
anyways....)

So, our example from before becomes...

    <q class="video" cite="http://exam
ple.com/video"><img
src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" /></q>

Or if you want that pretty-printed...

    <q class="video" cite="http://example.
com/thevideo">
        <img src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" />
    </q>



RFC

Comments?  Critisizms?  Opinions?


-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles  reptile.ca
    supercanadian  gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On May 27, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
wrote:

>
> TYPES OF THUMBNAILS
>
> Really there are different sources a thumbnail can come
from.
>
> A thumbnail can come from a video.  But it could also
come from a
> (static) image.
>
> So... to distinguish between these different types of
thumbnails, I've
> added a class-video to the <q> element.  (I
suppose if you have a
> thumbnail from a static image you could add
class-image... but
> anyways....)
>
> So, our example from before becomes...
>
>    <q class="video" cite="http://exam
ple.com/video"><img
> src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" /></q>
>
> Or if you want that pretty-printed...
>
>    <q class="video" cite="http://example.
com/thevideo">
>        <img src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" />
>    </q>
>
>
>
> RFC
>
> Comments?  Critisizms?  Opinions?

I don't think this is a very natural use of the <q>
element. A  
thumbnail isn't really like a quote of a prose fragment.
Consider  
that you would never put a thumbnail in quotation marks.
Also, <q  
cite=""> does not generally result in a
clickable hyperlink, and <q>  
adds rendered quotes in some browsers but not others. If you
want the  
full video to be clickable, what you might want is:

<a rev="thumbnail" href="http://example.com
/video">
   <img src="http://exa
mple.com/thumbnail.jpg">
</a>

Or, since rev is confusing and semi-deprecated, you could
use  
rel="full-video" or something like that; there's
no very good  
opposite to "thumbnail" unfortunately.

Regards,
Maciej



_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hello Benjamin,

On 5/27/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> Intriguing. A few points:
>
> 1. About your CSS, neither border nor text-decoration
remove the
> quotation punctuation added to q by browsers that
attempt to follow the
> HTML specification for q. You'd want to use the quotes
property:
>
> http:
//www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/generate.html#quotes
>
> Since q is an inline element and blockquote is block,
presumably
> sometimes you'd want to use blockquote instead.

You must have been typing this as I wrote my correction...

http://microformats.org/discuss/ma
il/microformats-discuss/2007-May/009703.html

Originally, for some reason, I was thinking about the style
I add to
the <abbr> element when I use it for dates.


> 2. Your examples should include proper alt text.

Good catch.  (You are correct.  It should have included
it.)


> 3. I'd suggest using class="videothumbnail"
instead of class="video",
> which could mean all sorts of things.

That's a good point about class-video.


See ya

>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Note... there is a detail I left out of this.
> >
> > One many browsers, the <q> element adds a
specific style that really
> > doesn't work a thumbnail.
> >
> > So I add the following to the <q>
element...
> >
> >  style="border:0;text-decoration:none;"
> >
> > (I could probably get away with just the
"border:0"... but I add the
> > "text-decoration:none" just to be
safe.)
> >
> > See ya
> >


-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles  reptile.ca
    supercanadian  gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hello Maciej,

On 5/27/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjsapple.com> wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
wrote:
>
> >
> > TYPES OF THUMBNAILS
> >
> > Really there are different sources a thumbnail can
come from.
> >
> > A thumbnail can come from a video.  But it could
also come from a
> > (static) image.
> >
> > So... to distinguish between these different types
of thumbnails, I've
> > added a class-video to the <q> element.  (I
suppose if you have a
> > thumbnail from a static image you could add
class-image... but
> > anyways....)
> >
> > So, our example from before becomes...
> >
> >    <q class="video" cite="http://exam
ple.com/video"><img
> > src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" /></q>
> >
> > Or if you want that pretty-printed...
> >
> >    <q class="video" cite="http://example.
com/thevideo">
> >        <img src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" />
> >    </q>
> >
> >
> >
> > RFC
> >
> > Comments?  Critisizms?  Opinions?
>
> I don't think this is a very natural use of the
<q> element. A
> thumbnail isn't really like a quote of a prose
fragment. Consider
> that you would never put a thumbnail in quotation
marks.

True... but you don't have to have the <q> elements
put quotes around
the thumbnail.

Please refer to the following to see how to get rid of
it...

http://microformats.org/discuss/ma
il/microformats-discuss/2007-May/009703.html

This is similar to the problem we have with using
<abbr> for dates.

Some browsers put a border under the <abbr> element.

We get rid of the bottom border some browser put under the
<abbr>
element (when we use it for dates) with a little extra
inline style.

We can do something similar here for the <q> element
used for video thumbnails.

> Also, <q cite=""> does not generally
result in a clickable hyperlink,

It's not suppose to be clickable (in general).

In this bit of sHTML, I'm only tackling the problem of video
thumbnailing.

It is true that I often do make it clickable by having code
like the
following...

    <a href="http://example.
com/thevideo">
       <q class="video" cite="http://example.
com/thevideo">
           <img src="http://example
.com/thumbnail.jpg" alt="..." />
       </q>
    </a>

But this is NOT always the case.  Sometimes I don't want the
thumbnail
to be clickable.

> and <q>
> adds rendered quotes in some browsers but not others.
If you want the
> full video to be clickable, what you might want is:
>
> <a rev="thumbnail" href="http://example.com
/video">
>    <img src="http://exa
mple.com/thumbnail.jpg">
> </a>

I'm not sure if the "rev" attribute is being used
correctly in your markup.


> Or, since rev is confusing and semi-deprecated, you
could use
> rel="full-video" or something like that;
there's no very good
> opposite to "thumbnail" unfortunately.
>
> Regards,
> Maciej
>


See ya

-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles  reptile.ca
    supercanadian  gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On May 27, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Paul Wilkins wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#h-12.1.2
>
> My simplified understanding of the relationship between
rel and rev is
>
> With the rel attribute, the relationship that the
linked page has  
> to this link is "foo".
> With the rev attribute, the relationship that this link
has from  
> the linked page is "foo".

Actually, I think that's exactly backwards. But that's part
of the  
reason rev is so confusing.

> Use "previous" or "next" as the
link values and you'll understand  
> what's going on.

<link rel="next"> should point to the
logically "next" document, so  
the linked resource's relationship to the current resource
is that it  
is "next".

What you describe below seems to reflect the same
understanding  
though, so maybe we just disagree on the wording.

>
> From: "Patrick H. Lauke" <reduxsplintered.co.uk>
>> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>>
>>>> <a rev="thumbnail"
href="http://example.com
/video">
>>>>    <img src="http://exa
mple.com/thumbnail.jpg">
>>>> </a>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the "rev" attribute
is being used correctly in  
>>> your markup.
>>
>> Rev defines the reverse link to the current
document, not to  
>> whatever is encapsulated by the link
itself...unless I'm reading  
>> the spec wrong
>> "This attribute describes the relationship
from the current  
>> document to the anchor specified by the href
attribute"
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-A
>
> A rel link from the video page to the thumbnail would
be "thumbnail".
> So, a rev link on the thumbnail to the video page would
also be  
> "thumbnail".
>
> I've got no problem with using rel and rev values
myself, but if  
> you're going to use a a custom link-type that's not
actually  
> defined in ht
tp://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links then  
> you should use a profile to define what's going on.


_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hello Benjamin,

On 5/28/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>
> > On 5/27/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjsapple.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I don't think this is a very natural use of
the <q> element. A
> >> thumbnail isn't really like a quote of a prose
fragment. Consider
> >> that you would never put a thumbnail in
quotation marks.
> >
> > True... but you don't have to have the <q>
elements put quotes around
> > the thumbnail.
> >
> > Please refer to the following to see how to get
rid of it...
> >
> > http://microformats.org/discuss/ma
il/microformats-discuss/2007-May/009703.html
> >
> >
> > This is similar to the problem we have with using
<abbr> for dates.
> >
> > Some browsers put a border under the <abbr>
element.
> >
> > We get rid of the bottom border some browser put
under the <abbr>
> > element (when we use it for dates) with a little
extra inline style.
> >
> > We can do something similar here for the <q>
element used for video
> > thumbnails.
>
> Hmm. I think Maciej does have a strong point about
interoperability
> here. Removing the quotation punctuation with CSS does
not help those
> with user-designated styles or UAs that ignore such
CSS: e.g. text
> browsers and screen readers. The question to ask
yourself is: if you
> could not remove the quotation punctuation and layout,
would you still
> use <q> and <blockquote>? If a screen
reader read (for example):

A text browser can NOT see the graphical thumbnail anyways. 
It will
see the "alt" text of the thumbnail.  And putting
the "alt" text in
quotes seems OK with me.

(It's only the putting the graphical thumbnail in quotes
that seems wrong.)

Also... a screen reader is going to read the "alt"
text too (instead
of the graphical thumbnail).  So... in this case too,
putting the
"alt" text in quotes seems just fine.

So... this seems to be a non-issue.

> quote Dorothy encounters the Lion end quote
>
> That would be rather strange, wouldn't it? As you say
above, it is
> "True" that "you would never put a
thumbnail in quotation marks." This
> suggests that we should not be using <q> or
<blockquote> for this.

Like I pointed out above, any situation (that you mentioned)
that
keeps the quotation marks is actually fine doing it, because
it will
also be seeing/reading the "alt" text... and NOT
doing anything with
the graphical thumbnail.

So it's a non-issue.


See ya

> Maybe it would be better to use something along the
lines of:
>
> <span class="video-details"><img
class="thumbnail" alt="Dorothy
> encounters the Lion" src="http://example.com/thumbnail.jpg"><cite>
;<a
> href="http://example.com/
thevideo" type="video/quicktime">The
Wizard of
> Ozz</a></cite></span>
>
> >> If you want the full video to be clickable,
what you might want is:
> >>
> >> <a rev="thumbnail" href="http://example.com
/video">
> >>    <img src="http://exa
mple.com/thumbnail.jpg">
> >> </a>
> >
> > I'm not sure if the "rev" attribute is
being used correctly in your markup.
>
> Yeah, the HTML4 spec says the rev and rel imply
relationships between
> the current document and the href, not the anchor's
contents and the href.
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#adef-rev
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis


-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles  reptile.ca
    supercanadian  gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hello Benjamin,

> "Most screen reader users are not deaf as well as
blind, and many
> screen readers still have some sight. So most screen
reader users are as
> likely to enjoy watching videos online as you and
I"

Hmmm... that's a good point.  And something I wasn't aware
of....

Perhaps the "alt" text could be something like...

  alt="Thumbnail of ..."

So, for example, we could have...

  alt="Thumbnail of Tirebiterz episode #12"

(Where Tirebiterz is an Internet TV show.)


On 5/28/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> Colin Barrett wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >>  If a screen reader read (for example):
> >>
> >> quote Dorothy encounters the Lion end quote
> >>
> >> That would be rather strange, wouldn't it?
> >
> > I dunno, I think that might be helpful. It's
semantic information that
> > it's a portion of a larger document.
>
> This is a tempting argument, but in theory and practice
a problematic
> one. <q> and <blockquote> are not merely
intended to be "portions of a
> larger document" but to be /quotations/:

True... but is the <abbr> element designed for the way
Microformats do dates?

It seems like the same problem as that isn't it.

And if we accept that screen readers can adapt to dates with
the
<abbr> element, then why not accept that they can
adapt to thumbnails
in a <q> element?

> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/text.html#h-9.2.2
>
> I'm not sure that a thumbnail really is a quotation,
although it's
> clearly conceptually close to one. When people talk of
quotations from
> movies in everyday speech, they are talking about
quotations from the
> dialogue not stills, e.g.:
>
> http://www
.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/quotes
>
> I don't think "quote Dorothy encounters the Lion
end quote" would be a
> human readable hint that it's a thumbnail from a video.
Unless you
> happen to be a microformats guru. ;)

What about what I mentioned above... about using alt text
like...

  alt="Thumbnail of Dorothy encountering the
Lion"

So that would read...

  "quote Thumbnail of Dorothy encountering the Lion end
quote"


> > Using a span tag as you suggest provides the UA
with zero semantic information.
>
> I'd prefer to provide zero information than potentially
misleading
> information. I suppose one could prefix the alt with
"still:" though:
>
> alt="still: Dorothy encounters the Lion"
>
> So then you might hear:
>
> graphic still Dorothy encounters the Lion link The
Wizard of Oz
>
> A microformat parser could remove everything up to and
including the
> first colon to get to the alternative text proper.
>
> > I suspect having alt
> > tags that just link to a video which perhaps they
don't want to watch is
> > annoying to people with screen readers -- although
I think I would need
> > a bit more data about how screen readers work and
how they're used to
> > really say anything else.
>
> I believe your suspicion is wrong for three reasons:
>
> 1. Most screen reader users are not deaf as well as
blind, and many
> screen readers still have some sight. So most screen
reader users are as
> likely to enjoy watching videos online as you and I.
Their big problem
> with sites like YouTube is that it's too hard to /find/
videos, not to
> watch them:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/acces
s20/2007/05/access_20_interview_mark_prous.shtml
>
> 2. Most video formats, include Flash video and
Quicktime, can include
> captioning which mainstream screen readers can push to
a braille display
> for deafblind users.

Yeah... I'm actually using a "captioning" sHTML in
a piece of software
that hasn't been made public yet.  (Perhaps I'll describe it
on this
list later... and get it reviewed.)


See ya

> Videos /should/ include captioning and authors
> should make it clear when they do not: and ideally
provide a transcript
> as an alternative. There are now captioning websites
that either make it
> easy to add captions to online video or will even
caption it for you for
> free on request:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/access2
0/2007/05/captioning_video_gets_easier.shtml
>
> 3. Even if a video is completely inaccessible for some
reason, screen
> reader users may use the alternative text to understand
why the author
> is referring to that video, to share the video or
thumbnail with sighted
> friends or colleagues, or to demand an accessible
alternative. Just
> hiding inaccessible materials would produce confusion.
>
> On an even more basic technical level: leaving out alt
would result in
> some screen readers reading the image src attribute.
Leaving alt blank
> would result in some screen readers reading the href
for any surrounding
> anchor link when alt provides the only text content for
the link, e.g.:
>
> <a href="http://
www.example.com/video"><img
alt=""></a>
>
> By default, Window-Eyes would read something like:
>
> link h t t p colon slash slash w w w dot example dot
com slash video
>
> Commonly, I think, the user will have reduced the
verbosity to strip out
> most punctuation and only have to suffer:
>
> link h t t p w w w example com video
>
> Takeaway: include an alt for all images; and always
include an alt with
> actual text if the img is the /sole/ content of the
link.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles  reptile.ca
    supercanadian  gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hello Benjamin,

On 5/28/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>
> > On 5/28/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<bhawkeslewisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> >> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 5/27/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjsapple.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >> I don't think this is a very natural
use of the <q> element. A
> >> >> thumbnail isn't really like a quote
of a prose fragment. Consider
> >> >> that you would never put a thumbnail
in quotation marks.
> >> >
> >> > True... but you don't have to have the
<q> elements put quotes around
> >> > the thumbnail.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Hmm. I think Maciej does have a strong point
about interoperability
> >> here. Removing the quotation punctuation with
CSS does not help those
> >> with user-designated styles or UAs that ignore
such CSS: e.g. text
> >> browsers and screen readers. The question to
ask yourself is: if you
> >> could not remove the quotation punctuation and
layout, would you still
> >> use <q> and <blockquote>? If a
screen reader read (for example):
> >
> > A text browser can NOT see the graphical thumbnail
anyways.  It will
> > see the "alt" text of the thumbnail. 
And putting the "alt" text in
> > quotes seems OK with me.
> >
> > (It's only the putting the graphical thumbnail in
quotes that seems wrong.)
>
> Ah. Okay, I hadn't understood that's what you were
saying. I think
> putting the thumbnail alternative text in quotation
punctuation is
> potentially problematic unless the alternative text is
actually a
> quotation from the video's dialogue.

What if there is no video dialogue?

What if it is a motorcycle race?

What should I put in there then?... an onomatopoeia of the
motorcycles?

Something like...

    alt="errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..., errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...,
rrrmmmmmm..."



Doesn't really seem useful.


The "Thumbnail of..." suggestion seems better in
that case.


See ya

-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles  reptile.ca
    supercanadian  gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hello Benjamin,

On 5/28/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>
> >> This is a tempting argument, but in theory and
practice a problematic
> >> one. <q> and <blockquote> are not
merely intended to be "portions of a
> >> larger document" but to be /quotations/:
> >
> > True... but is the <abbr> element designed
for the way Microformats do
> > dates?
> >
> > It seems like the same problem as that isn't it.
> >
> > And if we accept that screen readers can adapt to
dates with the
> > <abbr> element, then why not accept that
they can adapt to thumbnails
> > in a <q> element?
>
> But I /don't/ accept that. IMHO microformats currently
abuse <abbr> and
> perhaps (more debatably) title for time and location,
violating the
> standards-based credos of the movement with poor
consequences for
> assistive technology which have already been widely
discussed on the
> list.

Admittantly, I haven't gotten around to reading those
threads yet :-(

Was there a consensus about a solution to the problem you
are describing?

> And even if screen readers can eventually adapt to read
ISO dates
> and geographical data as anything other than gibberish,
their users will
> lag behind the times because mainstream screen readers
are prohibitively
> expensive. On balance, I'd prefer innovators to depart
from the HTML
> specification by introducing new attributes for new
parsers with a
> custom DTD than to break HTML documents in existing
user agents by
> abusing the semantics of old elements. (Not that a
custom DTD would be a
> great idea either, just the lesser of two evils.)
>
> But at least the misuse of abbr for ISO time and
location was useful for
> parsers, whereas this misuse (if we agree it is such)
of <q> isn't.

I'd say I'm suggesting it be used in a way the designers of
it
probably didn't imagine it would be used.  (It doesn't seem
to violate
the HTML specification though.)

Having said that... there isn't a <thumbnail
cite="..." src="...">
element... so what else can we do?

I want to add semantics somehow... but don't want to make
non-validating HTML (and just make up a new element... even
though I'd
like to).

> >> I don't think "quote Dorothy encounters
the Lion end quote" would be a
> >> human readable hint that it's a thumbnail from
a video. Unless you
> >> happen to be a microformats guru. ;)
> >
> > What about what I mentioned above... about using
alt text like...
> >
> >  alt="Thumbnail of Dorothy encountering the
Lion"
> >
> > So that would read...
> >
> >  "quote Thumbnail of Dorothy encountering the
Lion end quote"
>
> Well that's an improvement. But in that case what's
actually
> communicating the semantic" is "Thumbnail
of", not <q>. And "quote"
> still confuses the issue.
>
> Also, I think "Thumbnail of" will prove
harder to internationalize than
> "Still:" or "Thumbnail:", which
would mean parsers would struggle to get
> at the alternative text proper.

The <img> "alt" attribute doesn't really
seem built for i18n.

Isn't i18n usually handled with completely different
versions of the
same HTML page.

Which in that case would make the i18n for the sHTML Video
Thumbnailing suggestion I made a non-issue.

(I.e., there would be different version of the
"alt" attribute for
each language supported (in each of those pages)... and it
will be a
worded in a way that makes sense.)


But yeah... having "quote" read out does still
seem undesired.

Aren't the aural style sheet or something that can be used
to get rid of that?


See ya

>
> > Yeah... I'm actually using a
"captioning" sHTML in a piece of software
> > that hasn't been made public yet.  (Perhaps I'll
describe it on this
> > list later... and get it reviewed.)
>
> Cool.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis


-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles  reptile.ca
    supercanadian  gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hello Benjamin,

On 5/28/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewisgooglemail.com> wrote:
> Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
>
> >> Ah. Okay, I hadn't understood that's what you
were saying. I think
> >> putting the thumbnail alternative text in
quotation punctuation is
> >> potentially problematic unless the alternative
text is actually a
> >> quotation from the video's dialogue.
> >
> > What if there is no video dialogue?
>
> Sorry, it's my fault for being oblique but that was
actually my point.
> Not all videos have dialogue and not all dialogue would
make the most
> suitable thumbnail alternative text. Hence <q> is
not generally an
> appropriate element for enclosing the thumbnail.

Keep in mind though, that this sHTML suggestion is based on
accepting
that a video thumbnail being enough like a quote to use the
<q>
element.  (I.e., accepting that a video thumbnail is a quote
from a
video.)

If you don't accept that, fair enough.

But all this is based on that.


(But perhaps that's what you were trying to push... that you
don't accept that.)

See ya

-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles  reptile.ca
    supercanadian  gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss