- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 03:32:47 +0900
- To: Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>
- CC: public-html@w3.org, whatwg@whatwg.org
- Message-ID: <45FD85CF.4070008@students.cs.uu.nl>
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. ~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.
Received on Sunday, 18 March 2007 18:33:37 UTC