- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 06:06:49 -0500
- To: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 5, 2007, at 5:55 AM, James Graham wrote: > > Henri Sivonen wrote: > >>> However, it should be a goal of ours to provide a language that >>> services the needs of authors. >> If evidence suggests that authors (en masse, not just a few >> outliers) don't use a given facility in an analogous situation, >> chances are that expanding the facility to another situation isn't >> actually servicing the real needs of authors. > > And, FWIW, the converse of this argument is the explanation of why > <video> and <audio> are very important features; there is already a > clear demand for the ability to put video and audio on the web, as > indicated by the success of e.g. youtube. However the existing > solutions have substantial technical problems (e.g. requiring the > use of a proprietary flash container file). Therefore by making > <video> and <audio> first class citizens with appropriate scripting > APIs and a well-thought out fallback story we are very clearly > "servicing the needs of authors" (and users). > And you think that there is a clear demand for still images on the web? So that still images don't need to be "first class citizens" with "well-thought out fallback story"? I see still images in a great number more of the pages I visit than I see video and audio. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't provide those facilities, but it is very very strange to here arguments for video and audio alongside arguments that still images don't deserve the same "first class citizen" status. Take care, Rob
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 11:07:11 UTC