mjs at apple.com
Sat Mar 24 14:01:32 PDT 2007
On Mar 24, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:49:11 +0100, Alexey Feldgendler
> <alexey at feldgendler.ru> wrote:
>>> I don't really like this element. The name is confusing
>>> especially with an attribute named src="". It also introduces yet
>>> another void element, can't we just reuse <param>? The value=""
>>> attribute of <param> would point to a resource and the type=""
>>> attribute (which has been dropped) would be added back. I suppose
>>> it might be considered overloading, but in a way we're just
>>> defining how the processing model of a plugin could also work...
>> If you put it inside <object> fallback content, it will be
>> misunderstood by the current browsers as pertaining to the <object>.
> Apart from the fact that I'm not entirely sure about reusing
> <param> anymore, I don't understand this argument.
He's saying that if you put a <video> inside an <object> element as
its fallback (not sure why you would do that, but let's suppose you
did), and the <video> contains <param> elements, the <object> would
incorrectly assume the <params> belong to it. I'm not sure if that's
right (didn't test) but if so it would be a problem.
More information about the whatwg