- From: Dmitry Turin <html60@narod.ru>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 16:23:03 +0300
- To: public-html@w3.org
RB> we would be justified in introducing other elements (such as RB> <audio>, <video>, <picture>, and <canvas>) I vote to opposite tend: let's unify (instead of branching)! <video>, <audio>, <canvas>, <embed>, <applet>, <picture> is slow death of user (maybe you prefer to work manually instead of computer?). (1) What's about rich fallback, maybe it's better to use LINK inside BODY to overcome cultural resistance? Something like <body> <link href="./a.jpg"><i>rich</i> <b>fallback<b></link> <link classid= href= ><i>rich</i> <b>fallback<b></link> <link href="./a.htm"><i>rich</i> <b>fallback<b></link> </body> (2) I even think, that browser should notify user by fallback of LINK inside HEAD, when css is not accessable or renderable. This way has no un-compatibility. Something like <head> <link type="text/css" href="./a.txt"><i>rich</i> <b>fallback<b></link> </head> (3) Of course, i'd like to use LINK instead of IFRAME. P.S. MS> <video src="foo.mp4"> is more intuitive than <object type="video/mpeg4" data="foo.mp4"> <object data="foo.mp4"> is still better, <link href="foo.mp4"> is the most intuitive. RB> The algorithms should simply branch on the different media types. +1 Dmitry Turin HTML6 (6.1.1) http://html60.chat.ru SQL4 (4.1.0) http://sql40.chat.ru Computer2 (2.0.3) http://computer20.chat.ru
Received on Friday, 6 July 2007 12:48:51 UTC