Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

Karl Dubost schreef:
> Le 16 mars 2007 à 12:39, Ian Hickson a écrit :
>> Wow, what a lot of feedback on video! I've added a <video> element, with
>> basic features, but really what we need is feedback from video experts.
>
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video

Ugh, that’s just horrible.

 From what I gather after a quick look at the WHATWG list, this is the 
rationale: "The idea is that support for the formats would be native 
(much like with <img>) so you wouldn't have a chrome and a player and 
such..." Apparantly it is an experiment in an internal build of Opera. 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is a single reason why 
the browser couldn’t play back content embedded with an <object> tag, 
like it’s supposed to. What’s more, that would allow it to work with 
existing web content, too. Plus it’s backwards compatible.

And if one wants to permit more direct playback control, extend the DOM 
of HTMLObjectElement to let it more easily expose a JavaScript API 
depending on the object type. Note that all the functions in the API of 
the <video> element (play(), pause(), stop(), and in the future 
forward(), rewind(), etc.) would also apply to audio, presentations, 
flash movies, GIF animations, even web pages in an iframe, which all do 
not fit under the nomer <video>. In other words, it is very generic 
functionality and the mistake of <img> and <iframe> should not be 
repeated *again* with <video>.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.