- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:56:32 +0100
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 06:27:45 +0100, Shadow2531 <shadow2531 at gmail.com> wrote: >> Opera has some internal expiremental builds with an implementation of a >> <video> element. The element exposes a simple API (for the moment) much >> like the Audio() object: > > I think it'd be cool if the video element *just* supported theora. It probably doesn't make much sense to impose such restrictions. > If it supports whatever the browser wants to implement, we'd have to > do like the following I think. > > <video src="test.wmv"> > <video src="test.mpg"> > <video src="test.ogg> > I give up > </video> > </video> > </video> The intentention of the draft is that this is allowed. It might not be specified entirely correct though. Hence the "proposal" status :-) > You probably want the video element to be really, really basic, but I > don't think it should be. It needs to have some features (eventually). > These are just some of the things *I* might like. > > [...] That's one of the reasons a dedicated element is better than reusing the <object> element. All the new video specific APIs would otherwise have to be defined for all possible things the <object> element can represent (images, nested browser context, video, audio, plugins, etc.). Given that the <object> element is already a nightmare for implementors... > I assume you want the width and height attributes to be used only for > specifying the original width and height the video was made at, and > css should be used to set the width and height to a % or px etc.? Yeah, maybe. I was thinking about something along those lines, but I couldn't really figure out how it would work. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 03:56:32 UTC