[whatwg] Treat <video> like an image

[João Eiras]

Hi !

Not a long time ago, we saw an Opera build which had <video> support. What
was really really cool about it was that <video> was pretty much supported
like any other image format so we could apply filtering and other complex
stuff from svg like in this example.
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2007/video/svg/video-filter.svg

This gives us an entire range of possibilities with <video>, just like
with <svg>, or <img>

I think that video should be supported like any other image:
   - supporting transparencies (if the video codec allows)
   - embedding video files with <video> or <object> element
   - embedding video files with url() in css where images can be used, like
background-image
   - embedding video files with url() in css content rules

If course, this could raise some issues like:
   - performance - the UA should provide a way for the use to toggle video
on and off, or could make decisions based on the platform's overall
performance. Also, with rendering engines progressively migrating to
architectures that support hardware acceleration, blending a background
video with foreground content could be a trivial lightweight operation,
although the same cannot be said for software renderers.
   - fallback in css not possible - if a UA does not support video, then it
would ignore the content embedded in the stylesheet. Such behavior is also
fully supported for other content types, like unrecognized image formats
and the likes. However, the problem of adding fallback content with CSS
not being trivial, is a problem with css itself, and out of scope of the
<video> specification
   - accessibility, usability - by providing new means for authors to add
more video and possibly other annoying animations in webpages, users could
easily be annoyed with excess of animated content. This is more or less
the same problem of performance, so the UA should give the user the option
to disable video, preferably in site specific preferences, if supported.

So, what do you think ?

Bye.