[whatwg] Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements

[Maciej Stachowiak]

On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:20 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:

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

I generally agree, but note that new Image() makes an <img> element,  
so new Audio() could work analogously.

I think <audio> is useful for foreground/semantic audio, as opposed  
to purely presentational sound effects, because non-browser tools  
analyzing a document would have a harder time finding audio  
referenced only from script. (Imagine a most-linked MP3s on the web  
feature in a search engine.)

> 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.

I think it would be no visual representation by default with no  
controller, and just controls otherwise.

Regards,
Maciej