- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:02:43 +0300
- To: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>, public-html@w3.org
On Jul 3, 2007, at 08:04, Robert Burns wrote: > On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: >> (In any case, for <video>, <audio>, and <canvas>, I don't think that >> separating these features from <object> makes things harder for >> authors. >> If anything, I'd say it makes them simpler.) > > Would you say the same thing for <picture> ? FWIW, <picture> is significantly different because: 1) Still images already work *natively* in browsers and WYSIWYGish editors using <img> since way back when. 2) Still images don't require an elaborate scripting API. 3) From an authoring perspective the marginal cost of switching from <img> to <picture> is incredibly bad considering the marginal utility. (To go from a string fallback to markup-enable fallback, you break the compatibility with over a decade of software for the non- fallback content. And normal authors care about non-fallback more.) -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 07:07:20 UTC