- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:35:40 +0100
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>, public-html@w3.org
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of html is outdated since the object element was introduced.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they should not use this outdated element anymore to 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