[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>?


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