Re: img issue: should we restrict the URI

At 10:52  +0100 25/01/08, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
>I think, these problems show mainly, that the img element
>of html is outdated since the object element was introduced.
>There is no relyable method for authors to offer other
>alternative formats, if one does not work, therefore in
>doubt (If no traditionally supported format like JPEG or PNG),
>they should not use this outdated element anymore to
>have some more control about what happens than just
>the alt attribute.
>However this shows in general the problems of multimedia
>element in the current draft with technically superfluous
>elements like img or embed and mixing functionality and
>naming in an inconsistent or imcomplete way for audio,
>video and object.
>This complete area looks more like treating the shadows of
>history than some deliberated concept ;o)
>
>Therefore the best approach would be to replace img by
>image with the same functionality as object and doing
>similar things concerning functionality with video and
>audio to get the same approach as in SMIL - the naming
>is only related to semantics, the authors thinks is right,
>the functionality is always the same for all of them...

I don't think I understand.  IMG, audio, and video, have semantics 
that are more precise and consequent interfaces that are more 
functional than object.  Img and video state that the embedded object 
is visually displayable;  audio and video that the object has a 
temporal aspect.  Or are you saying that the interface to object 
should be extended to cover all semantic possibilities of anything 
that might be embedded?
-- 
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime

Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 10:37:59 UTC