W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2010

<video> attributes and children

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:00:31 -0800
Message-ID: <6F077B0AA4A04321B321F990CF42B9FC@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>
questions for <video>

1. Why does <video> not include @type and @media?
If <source> uses/needs them, then why not <video> if only @src?
If no <source> then @type and @media would not be present.

2. Why would <source> (or <param>) include Global attributes?
None are rendered and only the container really needs these.

3. Why does <video> @src empty or missing mean that <source> elements
may be included?

a src attribute, or zero or more source elements, followed by some or
none flow content or phrasing content

http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/video.html#attr-media-src

"There are two ways to specify a media resource, the src attribute, or
source elements. The attribute overrides the elements."

But if the attribute is present, <source> not conforming?
If the attribute is not present or empty, one or more <source> are
conforming?.

Sorry if I apparently hadn't looked at <video> in this detail before.
I just thought it seemed natural that this was a two level fallback
plan where is the <video> @src didn't play, then try <source> @src
content in sequence and if still no go then show the flow or phrasing
content.

Why doesn't the standard at least imply that the browser does anything
'automatic' in the fallback scheme?
Are the <source> elements in there just so I can include some script
to do fallback?

Thanks and Best Regards,
Joe
Received on Saturday, 6 March 2010 06:01:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:59 UTC