[whatwg] Video (Was: How not to fix HTML)
Christoph Päper
christoph.paeper at crissov.de
Wed Nov 1 10:03:54 PST 2006
*Ian Hickson*, 2006-10-30:
>
> Sure. FWIW, there's a lot of interest in browser vendors about
> introducing
> a <video> element or some such (or maybe making browsers natively
> support
> video in <object>, or both).
I think it would be helpful to /explicitly/ allow content types
(alias media types) in |type| of |object| to omit the subtype, e.g.:
<object type="video" data="foo.mpv"/>
<object type="audio" data="foo.mpa"/>
<object type="image" data="foo.png"/> ~= <img src="foo.png">
<object type="application" data="foo.swf"/> ~= <embed src="foo.swf"/>
<object type="text" data="foo.txt"/> ~= <iframe
src="foo.txt"/>
Maybe this is all the support for this element type that should be
required from conforming implementations. Furthermore |width| and |
height| should be required for freely scalable formats, but OTOH not
apply to 'audio' types (i.e. always equal zero), and exclude the
space required for an optional inline GUI.
I never understood, by the way, why videos and Flash-like content
shouldn't work within |img|. (Parameters can be specified in URIs.)
I could also envision an HTML5 where |alt| was optional for (or even
removed from) |img|, which in return was only allowed to be used for
optional, decorative images (and perhaps likewise |embed|). Every
illustration conveying meaning was then to be embedded using |object|
(including descriptive content, but nesting |object|s would be
discouraged, although allowed) or more sophisticated methods. This
wouldn't keep many correctly authored existing pages conformant, though.
More information about the whatwg
mailing list