W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Why <video>? (was Re: Microsoft has now joined the HTML Working Group)

From: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 23:10:34 -0400
Message-Id: <8B7DFD38-9885-4EC5-A91D-3EAEC83512F4@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, Matthew Raymond <mattraymond@earthlink.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Apr 5, 2007, at 10:23 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> 1) <video> has better syntax for video embedding than that  
> available using <object>. It is easier for authors to generate  
> (there will likely be no more need to copy magic recipes from web  
> sites for simple video embedding). And it should be easier for  
> systems that mine documents for data to identify as video (imagine  
> a search engine that wanted to identify most popular videos of the  
> day).

Older browser will not be able to load the <video> so we'll still need:

<video src="sample.mov">
	<object classid="clsid:02BF25D5-8C17-4B23-BC80-D3488ABDDC6B"  
codebase="http://www.apple.com/qtactivex/qtplugin.cab" width="320"  
		<param name="src" value="/rossa/mov/tang.mov" />
		<param name="controller" value="true" />
		<object type="video/quicktime" data="/rossa/mov/tang.mov"  
width="320" height="260" class="mov">
			<param name="controller" value="true" />
	  		Error text.

We could throw an <embed> in there too to get even older browsers.

- Elliott
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 03:22:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:18 UTC