[whatwg] Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements
sayrer at gmail.com
Wed Mar 21 20:06:37 PDT 2007
On 3/21/07, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at apple.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > Starting with simple features, and adding features based on demand
> > rather than just checking off features for parity with other
> > development
> > environments leads to a more streamlined API that is easier to use.
> > How should we approach this?
My two cents: we should put off events and other API pieces that
address editing applications. It is possible to write web versions of
things like iMovie and SoundEdit in Flash right now, but I don't think
it is realistic to capture that stuff in a first effort. We should
focus on playback and consumption for v1. So my question for any
proposal right now would be: "why is the feature needed for something
analogous to a VCR or YouTube screen?"
> > For <audio> in general, there's been very little demand for <audio>
> > other than from people suggesting that it makes abstract logical
> > sense
I disagree. It's been pointed out by multiple people that <video> will
be used for audio. That could be quite likely if the page authors
wants to send ogg vorbis audio.
> > * What's the use case for hasAudio or hasVideo? Wouldn't the author
> > know
> > ahead of time whether the content has audio or video?
> That depends. If you are displaying one fixed piece of media, then
> sure. If you are displaying general user-selectable content...
This reasoning seems sound to me. In general, I am weary of proposals
that require control over both sides of the wire to be effective.
> We have included a mechanism for static fallback based on container
> type and codec, so that it's possible to choose the best video format
> for a client even if user agent codec support varies.
What existing markup leads us to believe this will be an effective
method for content negotiation?
More information about the whatwg