- From: Matthew Ratzloff <matt@builtfromsource.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:28:50 -0700 (PDT)
- To: public-html@w3.org
On Fri, March 16, 2007 5:03 pm, Guillaume Guerin wrote: > 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. I don't understand why a <video> element is "easier to manipulate than [an] <object> element". How does a unique name make it easier to work with? I'm not necessarily opposed, I just don't think it's been adequately justified yet. Native video can be supported without <object>, and should any parameters need to be set, that can be accomplished with context-specific <param> elements. -Matt
Received on Saturday, 17 March 2007 19:29:02 UTC