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

Re: AW: Public feedback on HTML5 video

From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:44:44 -0500
Message-ID: <7c2a12e20912301244w54d59b67k3492f073687d0b9f@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich" <k.scheppe@telekom.de>, HTMLwg <public-html@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote:
> foo.ogg#t=10 means the video file from t=10 - which is not an image.
> I think you really mean foo.ogg#t=10,10

Browsers could support videos wherever they support images, and just
use the first frame of the video.  They don't, but there's no reason
they couldn't.  Nothing says that <img src="foo"> must refer to a foo
that has an image/* type.  If you like, HTML could specify that any
attribute that accepts a URL to an image can also accept a URL to a
video, and in that case the first frame of the video is used.  E.g.,
if foo is an image file then <img src="foo"> represents foo, and if
foo is a video file then <img src="foo"> represents the first frame of

This makes no difference anyway until media fragments are implemented,
though, so not much point discussing it yet.
Received on Wednesday, 30 December 2009 20:45:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:55 UTC