[whatwg] Video (Was: How not to fix HTML)

Charles Iliya Krempeaux supercanadian at gmail.com
Wed Nov 1 13:30:45 PST 2006


On 11/1/06, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper at crissov.de> wrote:
> *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"/>

+1 for something like that.

ALOT of "normal" web developers have problems with MIME types.  (They don't
have them memorized.  And don't know what MIME type corresponds to what file

I've done things where I've asked people to add a "type" attribute to
<a>'s... but "normal" web developers find this difficult.

They know what they are dealing with is a "video"... but they don't know the
different MIME types.  Like: "video/mpeg" for .mpg files, "video/x-ms-wmv"
for .wmv files, "application/ogg" for Ogg Theora files, etc.

Simplifying it to allow type="video" would make life alot easier on web
developers IMO.  And alot of times, when I asked web developers to do this,
I didn't care what the subtype was... I only cared whether it was a "video"
or not.

See ya

    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles @ reptile.ca
    supercanadian @ gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20061101/6b503249/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list