- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:51:45 +1000
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 08/07/2011, at 4:55 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:01 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: >> OK, the second is not true. But if you're doing it like this, why bother >> with cues at all? Wouldn't it be cleaner to have *only* a root <nav> with >> possible <nav> children? Using ranges for some chapters and cues for other >> is not very appealing, IMO. > > Agreed. The markup in the wiki is very confusing, imo, since > top-level chapters are indicated in a completely different way from > subchapters. > In my mind, the single-level subdivision as in DVD chapters is the 80% use case. Even with many Daisy files I have only seen single level subdivision. This subdivision would also be the one that I would visually represent in the player. I have an experiment at http://html5videoguide.net/demos/google_io/3_navigation/ with chapter markers on the timeline. So, the hierarchical navigation - as much as there is a need for it - could just stay within the cue. That seemed an appropriate solution that wouldn't need any new HTML features. I'm not wedded to this solution though. Silvia.
Received on Friday, 8 July 2011 00:52:35 UTC