- From: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 21:58:46 +0200
- To: "Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- CC: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Justin James <j_james@mindspring.com>, 'HTML WG' <public-html@w3.org>
Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) 2008-08-25 21.07: > Dave Singer wrote: > >> Note that the current design does allow for fall-back content. > > Yes, but according to Anne v. K., that (in the current editor's > draft of the specification), fallback can be reached only if > the browser itself does not support <video> (or <audio>), Actually, I would correct Dave: While <video>/<audio> supports some kind of fallback, the draft says that this isn't its purpose: " it is intended for older Web browsers which do not support video, so that legacy video plugins can be tried, or to show text to the users of these older browser informing them of how to access the video contents. Note: In particular, this content is not fallback content intended to address accessibility concerns." [1] So, it is more to be compared with the <noframes> element, which HTML 4 intended for giving links to the different frames (allthough it more commonly is used to say "sorry, but your browser doesn't support frames".) [1] http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.html -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 19:59:37 UTC