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

Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49316.24.113.147.1.1174159730.squirrel@webmail.builtfromsource.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

On Fri, March 16, 2007 5:03 pm, Guillaume Guerin wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand why a <video> element is "easier to manipulate than
[an] <object> element".  How does a unique name make it easier to work
with?

I'm not necessarily opposed, I just don't think it's been adequately
justified yet.  Native video can be supported without <object>, and should
any parameters need to be set, that can be accomplished with
context-specific <param> elements.

-Matt
Received on Saturday, 17 March 2007 19:29:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:21:34 UTC