W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2009

Re: ISSUE-9: video-synchronization - suggest closing on 2009-08-27

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:37:05 -0700
Message-ID: <613836FAC902470BA90CE199EF55669E@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <public-html@w3.org>
> something about mechanisms provided by <object param=...> that
> don't seem to be provided by <video>. I hope somebody sends
> mail about that soon

Hi,
I think it isn't about

<object param='xx'

it is about
<object type='mime' ... other standard attrs>
<param name='xxx' value='ccc'>
<param name='ddd' value='eee'>
...maybe more optional <param> elements
<fallbackhtml> stuff></fallbackhtml>
</object>

The param elements establish DOM interfaces to and from the nested 
context.
In general, the best use of <param> elements I have seen is to provide 
optional or required runtime info to and from the native device or 
plugin device that is running the content. The <param>(s) give ways to 
transport name-value pairs that are not defined as part of the 
standard html language <object> interface. It is complicated, but the 
general idea is that the host may get the embedded or native 
application running then send and receive runtime stuff through the 
params. If the info is defined, like for media elements such as 
<video> that have a list of standard attributes, the configurable 
params are not now provided.

Thanks and BEst Regards,
Joe
Received on Tuesday, 25 August 2009 03:37:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 10 October 2014 16:24:51 UTC