This is an answer to the first argument raised.
> One reason why audio might be desired would be to allow the nearest > available equivalent to logotype functionality. This might be motivated by > one of several pieces of US legislation (the Americans with Disabilities > Act and Section 508). If this is the case, the specification should > probably reflect that audio is a backup, especially for individuals who > cannot benefit from video.
One of the key issue is to understand the properties that a client compliant with this specification must support. Currently we have:
"Compliant applications MUST display more just one (or none) of the images *and* play just one (or none) of the audio sequences at the same time." The *AND* is not acceptable.
First of all, if audio is going to be supported, then separate requirements should be made so that client compliant with requirements fo image representation, can ignore compliance requirements for audio representation.
Now, do we want to promote the use of gingles for VISA, AMEX, MasterCard ? They would need to invent them.
If a user using a client is blind, do we think he will be more confident by hearing the gingle ? How does he make sure that the gingle really originates from the logoype extension ?