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
foo.

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