Re: handling fallback content for still images

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: <>

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 02:20:41 UTC