W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2007

Re: handling fallback content for still images (www-archive)

From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:10:55 -0500
Message-Id: <BCCB5179-CBB6-4868-90D3-22749A825CB5@robburns.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>


On Jul 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:52:43 +0200, Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>  
> wrote:
>>> These are not requested, these are being implemented. The  
>>> specification is there to make sure they are implemented in an  
>>> interoperable way. They help making HTML a more viable open  
>>> alternative to Flash, Flex, Silverlight, etc.
>>
>> No... they don't.
>
> How are they not helping with that?

You may have notice, but the web is filled with audio and video  
that's served using HTML 4.01 with virtually no problems for sites  
and authors.  They don't really help that much because, much more  
than <picture>  they add nothing to authoring over simply using the  
<object. element. They change the language in inconsistent ways that  
will confuse authors (why add <video>, but deprecate <applet.t>?) and  
Why allow fallback for motion video, but not a still image?). They  
are not supported in every UA. I could add more of the excuses you've  
given me for <picture>, but I'll stop there. The big difference  
between <picture> and <video> and <audio> is that <picture> actually  
adds something to the language that simplifies the work of authors:  
<video> and <audio>, not so much.
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 15:11:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:07 GMT