- From: Robert Burns <rob@robburns.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 07:27:48 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Jul 5, 2007, at 6:39 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> Ok, I hope I explained well enough why I think this is not >>> obvious at all. >> >> No. That had nothing to do with <video> and <audio>. Look I have >> nothing against those additions to the language. But I can't even >> begin to come up with a use-case for <video> and <audio> that >> could come close in importance to the need to provide fallback for >> still images. And no one else has been able to describe any >> pressing need for those either. > > James explained the reasons for <video> and <audio> in a separate > thread. Yes he explained that video and audio need to be first class citizens with fully featured fallback content. And you seem to be saying that still images do not deserve to be first class citizens in HTML with fully featured fallback content. I don not know how to reconcile those two statements. Take care, Rob
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2007 12:28:51 UTC