Re: handling fallback content for still images

Henri Sivonen wrote:

>> However, it should be a goal of ours to provide a language that 
>> services the needs of authors.
> If evidence suggests that authors (en masse, not just a few outliers) 
> don't use a given facility in an analogous situation, chances are that 
> expanding the facility to another situation isn't actually servicing the 
> real needs of authors.

And, FWIW, the converse of this argument is the explanation of why <video> and 
<audio> are very important features; there is already a clear demand for the 
ability to put video and audio on the web, as indicated by the success of e.g. 
youtube. However the existing solutions have substantial technical problems 
(e.g. requiring the use of a proprietary flash container file). Therefore by 
making <video> and <audio> first class citizens with appropriate scripting APIs 
and a well-thought out fallback story we are very clearly "servicing the needs 
of authors" (and users).

"Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?"
  -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 10:56:40 UTC