- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:02:46 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24731 Bug ID: 24731 Summary: Re-add the media attribute to the specification Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: HTML5 spec Assignee: dave.null@w3.org Reporter: ian@iandevlin.com QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org CC: mike@w3.org, public-html-admin@w3.org, public-html-wg-issue-tracking@w3.org Back in October 2012 a bug was submitted to remove the media attribute from <source> "if it isn't used": https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19619. Unfortunately this has now been adopted, and Hixie has removed it (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19619#c34) from the WHATWG specification (saying "no-one uses it" and calling it "essentially useless") and Philip Jägenstadt has marked it for removal from Blink (https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19619#c33). It has also been adopted by the HTML 5.1 specification in the WHATWG "cherry-pick" on the 7th of February: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2014Feb/0021.html. In the bug report some usage data has been provided which indicates that this attribute has not been used much, and this data was used in making the decision to remove it. I will admit to not having any any major counter data to this but I disagree with this attribute being "useless" and I have always thought that not enough people know about this attribute, its implementation and what it can do. An argument against the attribute's usefulness has been put forth in the bug thread stating that it isn't responsive and doesn't react to changes in the browser size etc. Whilst this is true and admittedly odd, I think that it is a moot point given the problem that the media attribute is used to solve. If you use the media attribute to serve a lower quality video with smaller file size based on a smaller screen size (based on the oft used assumption that a smaller browser width probably means a mobile device and lower bandwith - we all know this is not that accurate but we developers use it all the time) you are not going to want to serve a larger, higher quality video file when/if the user flips their device into landscape mode. Nor will the user be resizing their browser. If anything the attribute should be re-specified in order to be responsive so that browser support would be improved. At the moment the media attribute is the only native way to serve smaller audio and video files to smaller browser sizes. Indeed it could be used to only serve an audio or video file when the browser size is above certain dimensions, and coupled with a "normal" media query which hides the video/audio element, not serve audio or video at all and thus preventing an unwanted http request. I ran some quick tests to see what browsers currently correctly support the media attribute as part of <source>: Firefox 15+ Chrome 4 - 33 (removed from 34) Opera 10+ Safari 5.1+. IE 9 - 11 iOS Safari 5+ Android 4.1+ Opera Mobile 12+ Since the specification is there to describe what features are currently available in browsers, it should be returned to the specification. And since only Blink has dropped it recently, it is still supported by most browsers and therefore should remain in the specification. Responsive design and responsive images are a huge topic in the web world today, and here we have something that goes some way towards supporting responsive audio and video, and it's being removed. This makes no sense. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 14:02:50 UTC