- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:44:13 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Thomas Broyer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Thomas Broyer wrote: > >> > >> Though, now that HTML5 introduces <video> and <audio>, I wonder if > >> <object> couldn't be equivalent to those when type of the resource is > >> some video or sound... > > > > <object> doesn't expose the <video> or <audio> API, and doing so would > > be significantly more complicated than desired. The overloading of > > <object> as it already is was a mistake that we don't want to continue > > making. > > I wasn't talking about APIs! > > Just saying that now that HTML5 makes audio and video are first-class > web citizen, then maybe it should say that: > - if the /resource type/ starts with "audio/" and support for sounds > has not been disabled, then the <object> element represents the > specified sound or audio stream > - if the /resource type/ starts with "video/" and support for videos > has not been disabled, then the <object> element represents the > specified video That's already allowed as currently specced. User agents are allowed to handle any type they want to handle. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 00:44:13 UTC