[whatwg] <model/>: A 3D Equivalent to <img/>
anewpage.media at gmail.com
Sun Nov 1 15:12:14 PST 2009
Great contribution, greatly appreciated. I am in partial agreement with
you, and an XHTML2 approach was certainly something I pondered. A new tag,
however, makes more sense in the HTML5 way of doing things, in which native
media types are getting their own semantic tags:
<audio/> (sound), <video/> (yeah, video), <img/> (bitmap image), <svg/>
(vector image), <canvas/> (generated bitmap image) and I am proposing
<model/> (3D vector).
Not to mention, at this stage of browser development, "<object/>" appears to
be synonymous with "other" -- in other words, plug-ins.
I am a believer in a wide variety of semantic tags in order to finely
describe data, and while not having to develop more spec is an attractive
proposition, the whole point of a new version of HTML is to write a new HTML
On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95 at gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> I quite don't see the point of yet another media element; we've got
> enaugh of 'em already. IMO we should recommend only <object>. Weither
> it's 1D (eg a song), 2D (eg an image) or 3D (eg a model), visual or
> audio and interactive or not is defined by the type attribute. The UA
> simply uses the metadata associated with the file. Even if someone
> wants to link to some new type of media, he simply registers the media
> type at IANA and links to it. No adding elements to the spec needed,
> and no HTML 5 spec needs to be written.
> If you want new axis and on-the-fly dynamic rotation stuff you should
> rather add it to the ECMAScript standard (or ECMAScript bindings to 3D
> formats). Send mail to Chronos and/or ECMA. Better 3D styling: send
> mail to the CSS WG.
> But obviously I'm a guy that thinks that the new media elements (and
> <img>) SHOULD NOT be used -- at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg