W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

From: Guillaume Guerin <dev.deeder@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:03:09 +0100
To: Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <1174089789.20763.10.camel@Godzilla>

Le vendredi 16 mars 2007 à 11:42 -0600, Robert Brodrecht a écrit :

> Object tags can display jpeg, gif, png, etc. images, but I use img
> instead.  If you are a proponent for dropping all media-based elements in
> favor of only using object, that's a different story.  If you already
> stopped using the img tag in favor of the object tag, it wouldn't make
> sense to you to add a video tag.  As someone who does use the img tag on
> occasion, trying to create a cross-browser object tags and having to fall
> back on embed for IE or do some crazy voodoo magic[1] just to play a video
> on my site is quite a pain in the ass.  Simply typing '<video
> src="myvideo.ogg">' and letting the browser figure out all the rest is
> just easier.
> 
> And it's more semantic.  An object can be anything.  A video is a video.
> 
> [1] http://www.alistapart.com/articles/byebyeembed/

Like you, I think that <video> element is a good thing, easier to
manipulate than <object> element. Nowadays, there are more and more
videos on the Web and we shouldn't let Flash inaccessible and
in-interoperable video players playing all multimedia video content. So,
we have to use a simple useful element to insert easily a video on a
webpage. <video> element could do that.

-- 
Guillaume Guérin, Webdeveloper -- http://www.libert-fr.com/ 
"Numerical accessibility : more than good manners, it's an attitude"
Received on Saturday, 17 March 2007 00:03:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 17 March 2007 00:03:27 GMT