W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2011

[whatwg] <INCLUDE> and links with @rel=embed

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:19:06 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104282212170.25791@ps20323.dreamhostps.com>
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> On 4/28/11, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> >> >> An UA can support the scheme used without supporting the <source>
> >> >> element. If <A> was used, they just had to support <A> and the scheme.
> >> >
> >> > It's still not clear to me what problem this would solve. I see what it
> >> > would do, but why would we want that?
> >> >
> >> Backwards-compat. It's so UAs that don't support <source> can still
> >> grasp some semantical information from the element.
> >
> > Do you have a concrete example of how that would work? What current UAs
> > usefully grasp such information in such a context?
>
> All current UAs would understand the link (and most probably present it 
> to the user). Inline presentation is an optional luxury: the important 
> thing is getting the media across. I, for one, can't find any sign of 
> <source> support in wget, and a few other "non-mainstream" UAs.

Well for <video> fallback people are likely to use <a> as well, but I 
don't think it makes sense to force every <source> to be a link.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 28 April 2011 15:19:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:03 GMT