[whatwg] Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements

Martin Atkins mart at degeneration.co.uk
Thu Mar 22 01:20:01 PDT 2007

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I think <audio> can use almost the exact same APIs for most things as 
> <video>. This has the nice side benefit that new Audio() can just make 
> an <audio> element and provide all the relevant useful API.

To me, the distinction between the <audio> element and the Audio object 
is that the former has a "place" in the document where that audio 
content logically belongs, while the former is more of a global trigger 
for web application sound effects.

<audio> could, for example, be rendered in-line with surrounding text in 
an aural browser. A visual browser would presumably provide some kind of 
representation in the document of the audio which the user can interact 

In other words, <audio> should be like <img> for sound.

Of course, what the visual representation of <audio> should be is not an 
easy decision. It's even harder than <video>, because there's no 
inherent visual content to overlay a UI on top of.

More information about the whatwg mailing list