- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:03:06 +0100
- To: public-html@w3.org
> > 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? Yes, would be a better concept, for more complex formats like postscript, PDF, flash, SVG, SMIL, XHTML+SMIL, XHTML+MathML+SVG obviously an author can simpler decide whether the content is more related to a static image (image element), a text (a potentially text element), a media with a simple timeline and visual output including optional audio output (video) or a media with a simple timeline and audible output including optional video output (audio element, with optional video this can be useful for example for some audio/video clips used to promote mainly songs published on CDs, where the audio contains the main information and the video is only decorative). Or there could be another element to pronounce interactive, animated content (SMIL, SVG, flash) and finally a generic element like object to cover everything else without a specific named element. This is the way it is done for mulimedia content in SMIL, all these elements have the same technical functionality, only the meaning is changing with the naming. Ok, SMIL and SVG have another method to cover the problem of not supported formats and switching to alternative content, but the method as introduced with object works too - maybe it is in general a good idea to provide an interface to the user to switch between all available alternatives and an optional display in an external viewer to provide an optimal access to the content. At least I have often the problem, that on real existing pages using multimedia now, the content is not accessible, display is frustrated for several reasons (often including the incompetence of authors), but could be made accessible easily with a user interface providing more access to any object content without looking all the time into the source code of such pages to decide, whether the author used completely hopeless nonsense or if I still have a change to make the content somehow accessible. For an author the situation gets simpler, if all these multimedia elements have the same functionality. The author has not to care about a technical choice and can concentrate on the meaning of the element for his purpose. Implementors have just one interface for all multimedia object and the display depends mainly on the used format, not on the element used to embed it. With an interface users/readers have always the chance to explore, what alternatives are availalble and can decide on their own, if they want to try to manage the content maybe with a more appropriate program, if the current viewer doe not interprete a format at all.
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 11:06:58 UTC