- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 04:58:38 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13333 --- Comment #3 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> 2011-07-23 04:58:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > The fact that param is defined on object, and made use of regularly in the > manner I describe, and since it is the intent that audio and video elements > supplant the use of object, it is necessary to retain this usage or provide an > equivalent. embed and object still exist. <audio> and <video> are only there for audio and video resources. > > Also not that swf or sliverlight files are much more than just audio or video > > resources and can thus not be used in audio and video elements. So, those > > examples are not really valid. > > Oh? Why not? There is nothing in the definition of audio or video that preclude > its use. There are no restrictions placed by HTML5 on the media type referenced > by these elements. Since swf and silverlight can represent audio and video > content, I don't know enough about silverlight to comment, but I do know that swf does not represent audio or video content. Instead, it represents a player that can play back audio or video content. That is very different. > why shouldn't they be reasonable examples. In any case, the problem > described here is independent of the examples, and stands on its own without > requiring use of these particular formats. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Saturday, 23 July 2011 04:58:43 UTC