W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2007

Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:32:47 +0900
Message-ID: <45FD85CF.4070008@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>
CC: public-html@w3.org, whatwg@whatwg.org
Robert Brodrecht schreef:
> 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.

I am. However, not in HTML5 for I think various fairly obvious reasons.

> 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.

That is a problem that must be fixed. However, object is not inherently 
more ‘difficult’. For the most part, the crap with cross-browser object 
tags consists mainly of attributes for the plugin finder service, and I 
don’t see how you’re going to avoid that with <video> unless you intend 
to make it a non-pluggable system, which does not seem like a good idea. 
Making a new tag does not solve the old problem, rather, it creates new 
problems because it is not backwards- or forwards compatible.

The reason why embed is still needed is mainly because of Mozilla not 
having a functional plugin finder service for <object>, as far as I know.


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.

Received on Sunday, 18 March 2007 18:33:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:21:34 UTC