[whatwg] Some <video> questions
lists07 at wiltgen.net
Thu Jan 31 09:50:14 PST 2008
>> [Charles] Now I understand that <video> will be considered
>> successful without having fixed video embeddeding in general,
>> which is fine.
> [Christopher] Your loose use of terminology and snappy tone are
> seriously not helping.
If what you quoted above is an example of my tone, then you're
I really am fine if <video> is widely deployed as currently designed. My
opinion is that it will not widely adopted if it can't be used for
mainstream scenarios, and that this is probably the best time to speak up.
My terminology may seem loose if you look at the video on a typical YouTube
page and think "applet". For content creators and viewers, YouTube is
video. Nobody calls their friends to ask them to play a YouTube applet.
If the interactivity is the disconnect for you, it's worth noting that
mainstream media runtimes have been able to mix interactive elements with
video/audio for a decade or more. Video with interactivity isn't an applet
any more than video with captions is text.
If it's that the SWF references a FLV, QuickTime Movies have been able to
reference media pretty much forever, and when you embed an ASX with
references with Windows Media content, you're still embedding video even
though the metafile happens to be a text file.
If the goal isn't that most video content on the web should be semantically
tagged as <video>, then my agruments are moot.
If the goal isn't that video from YouTube and other social video sites
should be able to be shared using <video> elements, then my agruments are
Hopefully that clarifies things for you.
More information about the whatwg