[Bug 13094] First there was the <img> tag. Now, with HTML5, <audio> and <video> tags are being introduced (which also have the helpful controls attribute). This covers the 3 most important media types, namely pictures, music, and videos. However, there is a fourth ty

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13094

Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com
         Resolution|                            |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #3 from Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3cbug@gmail.com> 2011-06-30 20:17:44 UTC ---
Authors can already embed documents using <iframe> or <object> or such.  Most
browsers don't currently support rendering document formats this way, but
there's no reason they couldn't.  The reason we have special elements for
img/audio/video is because we have special standardized attributes that only
make sense for them, and special standardized JavaScript APIs.

So to add an element like <document>, we'd need clear use-cases that explain
what special standardized APIs would be needed, and proof that these use-cases
are widespread.  We could have APIs that expose the number of pages, allow JS
navigation between pages, stuff like that, but is this really something that's
so important?  Video is a *huge* use-case, which millions of people use every
day.  Document browsing is a lot less so, and (unlike video) can already be
handled okay by writing your own display code in JavaScript.

So this really needs a convincing explanation of why doing it in JavaScript
isn't good enough, and/or interest by a major browser implementer, before
there's any reasonable possibility that we spec it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 12957 ***

-- 
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 Thursday, 30 June 2011 20:17:47 UTC