- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 04:15:05 +0200
- To: <public-html@w3.org>
At 01:04 +0000 UTC, on 2007-07-03, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Robert Burns wrote: [...] >> <canvas> could just be >> >> <object type='image/canvas'> >> fallback >> </object > > Actually, no -- the <video>, <audio>, and <canvas> elements all expose > elaborate APIs that are specific to the kind of media to which they > relate. When those elements were introduced, it was thought unwise to > overload <object> with all these APIs as well as APIs for frames, plugins, > images, and the like. (Part of the reason <object> is so poorly > implemented is that it is so overloaded with different behaviours, a > lesson that I've tried to apply to all the new features in HTML5.) So that would seem to be an argument for introducing <picture> then. I mean, earlier I agreed with Anne that it would seem better if <object> would become interoperable. But if its non-interoperability is an argument to introduce <video>, <audio> and <canvas>, then it's also an argument for <picture>. (I'm not denying there are some cons, just that this is a pro for <picture>.) -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 02:20:41 UTC