[whatwg] <video> element feedback
contact at nickshanks.com
Tue Mar 20 16:42:24 PDT 2007
On 20 Mar 2007, at 21:50, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> However, I think if <object> is so widely derided by everyone,
>>> than I
>>> think it needs to be depreciated sooner rather than later.
>> I have seriously considered doing this. Unfortunately I don't
>> think we can
>> actually do it given the large amount of legacy content, e.g.
>> for how to embed flash which encourage use of <object>.
> In the unlikely event that <object> be in any way discouraged, can we
> ensure we allow element level fallback content for <img> (or some
> replacement element) as opposed to the alt attributes we're currently
> lumbered with and the longdesc attribute that WHATWG has done away
I asked for the resurrection of HTML+'s 
element last month.
The reasons I cited were exactly the same as the reasons being given
now in favour of the <video> element, however I was told
(paraphrasing) "Why bother, you can just use <object>" and "That
would break existing implementations" (though no such implementations
So again, I ask for an <image> element to replace <img>. Benefits
• As <video> would cater for video/* MIME types, <image> would cater
• The alt and longdesc attributes can be part of the fallback
content, allowing markup.
• You don't have to provide a type attribute and match on: object
• and more…
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2157 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the whatwg