[whatwg] Treat <video> like an image
joao.eiras at gmail.com
Tue Aug 12 06:49:45 PDT 2008
On , Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> wrote:
> João Eiras wrote:
>> Hi !
>> Not a long time ago, we saw an Opera build which had <video> support.
>> was really really cool about it was that <video> was pretty much
>> like any other image format so we could apply filtering and other
>> stuff from svg like in this example.
>> 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,
>> - 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
>> 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
>> would ignore the content embedded in the stylesheet. Such behavior is
>> 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
>> 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
>> to disable video, preferably in site specific preferences, if supported.
> I think I agree. But I don't see anything in any current specs that
> contradicts what you are saying. In other words, are you requesting any
> changes to any specific specs, or are you just asking UA developers to
> implement the feature set to full extent that specs allow?
> Note that the CSS spec says nothing about what format a url() can point
> to, thus there is no spec-wise reason pointing to a video file wouldn't
> And there is no documented limitation on which elements css transparency
> applies, thus applying it to a <video> element should work just fine,
> and already does in the implementation in recent firefox nightlies.
> / Jonas
I asked this just to probe some opinions, to make sure the spec does not
forbid this (and so you've clarified me), and to raise a bit more
awareness about these new possibilities.
I think that there could be a comment in a non-normative section of the
specification, for implementors, encouraging them to implement these
Thank you. Goodbye.
More information about the whatwg