- From: Guillaume Guerin <dev.deeder@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:03:09 +0100
- To: Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
Le vendredi 16 mars 2007 à 11:42 -0600, Robert Brodrecht a écrit : > Object tags can display jpeg, gif, png, etc. images, but I use img > instead. If you are a proponent for dropping all media-based elements in > favor of only using object, that's a different story. If you already > stopped using the img tag in favor of the object tag, it wouldn't make > sense to you to add a video tag. As someone who does use the img tag on > occasion, trying to create a cross-browser object tags and having to fall > back on embed for IE or do some crazy voodoo magic[1] just to play a video > on my site is quite a pain in the ass. Simply typing '<video > src="myvideo.ogg">' and letting the browser figure out all the rest is > just easier. > > And it's more semantic. An object can be anything. A video is a video. > > [1] http://www.alistapart.com/articles/byebyeembed/ Like you, I think that <video> element is a good thing, easier to manipulate than <object> element. Nowadays, there are more and more videos on the Web and we shouldn't let Flash inaccessible and in-interoperable video players playing all multimedia video content. So, we have to use a simple useful element to insert easily a video on a webpage. <video> element could do that. -- Guillaume Guérin, Webdeveloper -- http://www.libert-fr.com/ "Numerical accessibility : more than good manners, it's an attitude"
Received on Saturday, 17 March 2007 00:03:26 UTC