Re: [whatwg] <video> element feedback

The <object> element did what it said on the box, and that was to 
provide browser vendors and plugin developers with the freedom to 
innovate with the plugin APIs, media types, object models and the 
parameters passed to them. It was a significant improvement on the 
<embed> element in offering progressive fallbacks through nested 
object elements.

Standardization like diplomacy is all about the art of the possible. 
If vendors aren't willing to agree on all the details then you won't 
get interoperability. Vendors need to look after their own interests 
first, so standards depend on establishing a shared interest, and 
this may mean that standards fall short of meeting everyone's needs.

For media, we may be able to broker a consensus on the scripting 
interface for basic features and how to expose that as markup, but 
not on the media formats or codecs. We are however obliged to meet 
minimum standards for accessibility, and I hope that we can do 
better than just the minimum. For instance, text captioning for 
video rather than just static text, and support for selecting 
between multiple languages. I would be very disappointed if we can't 
agree on including that within the basic features.

  Dave Raggett <>

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, HåkonWium Lie wrote:

> Also sprach Laurens Holst:
> > > <object> is *very badly* implemented. It has been a decade since <object>
> > > was first created and browsers STILL don't do it right in all cases (or
> > > even in most cases, frankly). Adding more complexity to such a disaster
> > > zone is bad design.
> >
> > If the existing problems with <object> are so severe that it can$,1ryt be
> > reused (which I somehow doubt) ...
> If <object> work so well, why do you use <img> on your home page?
> > ... create a new element where you do it right. However, don$,1ryt
> > start separating it out into separate tags.
> This is where the first HTML WG (called the HTML ERB, editorial review
> board) started. In the first message to that group, on 07 Dec 1995,
> Dave Raggett wrote:
> | We have now set up a mailing list for us to continue the discussions
> | following on from our recent get together.  A press release on the
> | agreement to use a single mechanism for inserting multimedia objects
> | into HTML is being prepared and should be released shortly.
> (You need member-access rights to see the message [1]. I hope W3C will
> forgive me for posting this excerpt on a public list)
> The technical specification describes the <insert> element [2], which
> is member-only. The press release went out 11 Dec 1995 [3]. It's
> interesting to read, in light of the proposal to do it again.
> Personally, I'd say that the <insert> element (later renamed <object>)
> is a remarkable failure in a WG that is otherwise know for a stunning
> success: creating the world's most popular document format.
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> -h&kon
>              H,Aekon Wium Lie                          CTO ,A0~e,A.*

Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 10:57:03 UTC