- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:03:54 +0100
*Ian Hickson*, 2006-10-30: > > Sure. FWIW, there's a lot of interest in browser vendors about > introducing > a <video> element or some such (or maybe making browsers natively > support > video in <object>, or both). I think it would be helpful to /explicitly/ allow content types (alias media types) in |type| of |object| to omit the subtype, e.g.: <object type="video" data="foo.mpv"/> <object type="audio" data="foo.mpa"/> <object type="image" data="foo.png"/> ~= <img src="foo.png"> <object type="application" data="foo.swf"/> ~= <embed src="foo.swf"/> <object type="text" data="foo.txt"/> ~= <iframe src="foo.txt"/> Maybe this is all the support for this element type that should be required from conforming implementations. Furthermore |width| and | height| should be required for freely scalable formats, but OTOH not apply to 'audio' types (i.e. always equal zero), and exclude the space required for an optional inline GUI. I never understood, by the way, why videos and Flash-like content shouldn't work within |img|. (Parameters can be specified in URIs.) I could also envision an HTML5 where |alt| was optional for (or even removed from) |img|, which in return was only allowed to be used for optional, decorative images (and perhaps likewise |embed|). Every illustration conveying meaning was then to be embedded using |object| (including descriptive content, but nesting |object|s would be discouraged, although allowed) or more sophisticated methods. This wouldn't keep many correctly authored existing pages conformant, though.
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 10:03:54 UTC