[whatwg] Video proposals
Gareth Hay
gazhay at gmail.com
Fri Mar 16 15:08:17 PDT 2007
Ok, I could understand that approach, with things like <img><video>
handled internally.
Is there then a case for doing <object> properly by specifying a
replacement, something like <plugin> / <extern>?
Gaz
On 16 Mar 2007, at 22:15, Robert Brodrecht wrote:
>
> Andrew Sidwell said:
>> <flash> would be a poor choice of
>> something to put in a spec, simply because its use case is already
>> handled by <object>.
>
> I wouldn't say it that way. I'd say "because flash requires a browser
> plugin, we use object." Video is already handled by <object> but
> we don't
> want it to be any more. So, when you substitute "flash" with
> "video" in
> your sentence above, it is self-defeating. The reason Flash ought
> to stay
> in the object tag is because it is proprietary and requires a
> plugin. If
> Flash is ever open and freely available from Adobe, then <flash>
> might not
> be such a bad idea. Several video formats, on the other hand, are
> supported by major operating systems natively, and there is no need to
> have web developers jumping through hoops to use it. The theora
> codec, I
> assume, would be contained inside the browser itself, thus making
> it one
> format that would certainly be cross-browser and cross-platform
> whether
> the OS supported it or not.
>
> --
> Robert <http://robertdot.org>
>
>
More information about the whatwg
mailing list