W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2007

[whatwg] <source>

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:22:52 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0710130121200.19595@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
> 
> How about:
> 
> <playlist><ol>
> 	<li><audio src="foo" type="...">Audio fallback</audio></li>
> 	<li><video src="bar" type="...">Video fallback</video></li>
> </ol></playlist>
> 
> User agents that don't support playlist, audio and video just get an ordered
> list of fallback text.
> UAs that do support them also benefit in being able to negotiate each variant
> individually instead of getting whatever collection of media files the
> "playlist movie" decides upon.
> And perhaps playlists with a <ul> child can play the media in any order, not
> necessarily source order, presumably whatever item becomes available first.
> 
> But I have been arguing against element proliferation in another thread and
> here I am suggesting new ones :-)

:-)

I think we'll punt on playlists for now. Feature creep is a real danger!


On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> 
> There is an existing xml specification for playlists at 
> http://www.xspf.org/ .
> 
> I suggest treating playlists as objects in their own rights, so they can 
> be shared across different web pages. Thus, a playlist should rather be 
> embedded like this:
> 
> <playlist src="playlist.xspf">

Or <video src=playlist.xspf> I guess, yeah. That would be a good way to go 
forward if implementors want to support playlists.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 18:22:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:37 UTC