Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

Anne van Kesteren schreef:
>
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:28:50 +0100, Matthew Ratzloff 
> <matt@builtfromsource.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Having a dedicated API allows for a dedicated API. I tried to 
> elaborate on this on my blog earlier today:

I think objects embedded by <object> should be able to provide an API, 
without needing a new tag to be introduced. There should be a mechanism 
where objects can expose an object-specific API to the DOM. Some of it 
should be standardised, e.g. for timeline-based applications (audio, 
video, presentations, flash movies, GIF animations, etc.), play(), 
pause(), stop(), forward(), rewind() should be available. For list-based 
applications (web pages, play lists), next() and previous() should be 
available (preferably somehow also linkable, btw). But the mechanism 
should always be extensible, to allow plugin vendors to add 
functionality of their own where it is not specified.

And btw, the <video> vs. semantics argument keeps popping up, but I find 
it very unconvincing. Semantics is nice and all, but it should not be a 
reason to include something in the specification if there isn’t a good 
use case for it (more than one, preferably), and so far I’ve yet to see 
anyone mention a good use case for marking it up from a semantics point 
of view. You also avoid it in your blog post (“you can then easily do 
specific things with it”), and the CSS bit Håkan posted earlier isn’t a 
very convincing one I think.


~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.