- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:35:25 +0200
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
At 19:27 -0700 UTC, on 2007-08-29, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> On Aug 29, 2007, at 7:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: [... Re <http://esw.w3.org/topic/HTML/ObjectSupport>] >>> Did you find any problems in Safari's support for the OBJECT >>> element for images? I don't recall you mentioning any. As I mentioned in <http://www.w3.org/mid/p0624062ac2f3582dbb44@%5B192.168.0.101%5D>, Safari (2.0.4) doesn't present the image, but instead the contents of <object>, when @type is set to image/*. (If that's fixed in Safari 3, that's great :)) [...] > I believe it does size properly to intrinsic size of an image in > Safari 2 It does, yes. (Well, at least for the PNG I tested with.) [...] > I think the HTML5 recommendation will be to use <audio> and <video> > for audio and video when possible. These provide for fallback content. Fallback, yes. But equivalents? The current HTML5 draft speaks very specifically of fallback only, and seems to mean <video><a href="URL">click here</a></video>. > Apple also has a proposal in the works for selecting one of several > media items for <audio>/<video> based on accessibility considerations. Looking forward to that :) Is it for <audio>/<video> exclusively, or would it apply to stuff like <img>, <object>, <embed>, <canvas> and <table> as well? > <embed> is there primarily for content handled by plugins. The best > plugin markup for degrading gracefully in a wide variety of browsers > nests <embed> in <object> But <embed> is empty; offers no way to provide equivalents. It may be best today, but should that really be best tomorrow? > , and it would be unfortunate to make such > markup non-conforming [...] True, but we should do it in such a way that equivalents are possible. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 03:37:16 UTC