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

Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:55:05 +0100
Message-ID: <45FF06B9.4070201@kosek.cz>
To: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
CC: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, matt@builtfromsource.com, public-html@w3.org
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:

> By letting the mess that is <object> lay untouched as is, and instead
> focus the effort on something a bit more specific and new, the browsers
> might get it right this time. I agree on many of the comments about
> Audio vs Video and such, but dropping <object> in this case is imho a
> good way forward.

So in other words browser vendors have to implement support for a new
element in order to show video, audio, ... But if they have to create
new code why then they just not fix existing code for handling object

> Another problem with the API is that browsers (and authors) would have
> to switch API based on an often non-existing 'type' attribute. Given the
> poor support for <object> today, I doubt that's going to be a very solid
> solution. I predict that it's going to break in any number of ways
> because of the way <object> is implemented in today's browsers, as well
> as how they handle MIME types, content type sniffing, etc.

If the browser is able to recognize whether object should be treated as
image or video or audio or whatever in order to present it to user then
it must be able to provide correct API -- for treating timelined media,
for images, ... I think that such problems could be easily solved by
class inheritance. There could be very basic API for general object
element and specialized and more rich APIs will exists for objects
handling video, audio, images, embeded code (like Java Applet or ActiveX).

> I think the element should be named <media>, but other than that, I
> think most of it is all dandy.

And what about backward compatibility? Reasonable webdesigner will never
use such new element because there are too many browsers which are not
supporting it. The problem is not in markup, nor in element name -- the
problem is poor implementation in browsers and new element name will not
improve situation.


  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO/JTC1/SC34 member
 Want to speak at XML Prague 2007 => http://xmlprague.cz/cfp.html

Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 21:55:27 UTC

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