- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:14:13 +0200
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, public-html@w3.org, wai-xtech@w3.org
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:11:06 +0200, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> If the new language requires a completely different architecture it is >> unlikely to be adopted. Or maybe it is adopted, but the accessibility >> features are not being put to use. I think it will be easier for >> features to become adopted if they don't require a lot of rethinking, >> but rather can be incrementally deployed. I think that's one of the >> reasons it's important to look how authors are solving problems now. > > Providing fallback inside the new proposed <video> and <audio> elements > is no different from fallback inside <object>, so architecture-wise I > see no difference. I thought the question was what sites were using. Not what HTML 4 provides. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/> <http://www.opera.com/>
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2007 13:15:11 UTC