[whatwg] <video> element feedback

Nicholas Shanks 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.  
>> tutorials
>> 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  
> with?

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  
were cited).

So again, I ask for an <image> element to replace <img>. Benefits  
• As <video> would cater for video/* MIME types, <image> would cater  
for image/*
• 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…

- Nicholas.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2157 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070320/a1f50d17/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the whatwg mailing list