[whatwg] Video proposals
ian at hixie.ch
Thu May 15 02:55:50 PDT 2008
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Benoit Piette wrote:
> Another thing I like about the <video> proposal apart from the
> consistent API across browsers is that controls buttons could be
> generated by the browser, which would leed to a consistent user
> interface within the browser. This would be good for usability. Same
> with <audio>. I don't think those two tags would replace <object> though
> .<video> and<audio> would be a simpler way to do 80% of the needs of
> video / audio integration. I would be happy to use <object> for a more
> complex need.
> In the same train of thought, a <document> tag might be useful. I always
> found anoying that for many embeded documents (word or pdf) you would
> have a second user interface that have similar functionnality to the web
> browser (ex: search within a document). Something like <document src=""
> type="application/ms-word" />. Having a consistent API and consistent
> user interface for an embeded document would be certainly useful.
> Imagine a consitent interface (user and API) for an embeded word
> document, a pdf, or even an editable content / controls for a CMS, wiki
> or a blog... Of course, creating an API that can edit both a PDF and a
> Word document is something daunting to say the least... But something
> that could be useful for simple content creation (like in a simple CMS,
> blog or wiki, something that can actualy generate valid HTML!) and
> general document embedding for viewing might be possible.
What you describe here seems to be exactly what <iframe> is.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg