- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:22:01 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Jeff Schiller <codedread@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brad Fults <bfults@neatbox.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Jeff Schiller wrote: > > I notice <video> says the same thing, though I think there is a slightly > incorrect statement in [2]. Shouldn't > > "Content may be provided inside the video element so that older Web > browsers, which do not support video, can display text to the user > informing them of how to access the video contents. User agents should > not show this fallback content to the user." > > be > > "Content may be provided inside the video element so that older Web > browsers, which do not support video, can display text to the user > informing them of how to access the video contents. User agents that > support the <video> element should not show this fallback content to the > user." User agents must support the <video> element as part of supporting the spec, so it makes no sense to have a requirement that is predicated on them _not_ impementing the spec. (It's like having laws that only apply to people who are going to break the law -- if they're ignoring one law, there's no reason to believe they'll pay any attention to another.) > I think the fallback content mechanism within WHATWG HTML5 makes > perfect sense as long as older user agents would automatically display > the fallback content (which I'm assuming that has already been > verified given the overall philosphy of the WHATWG HTML5 document). > Given that, I don't see <switch> as necessary. What is <switch>? Do you mean the SVG element? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 21:22:13 UTC