W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] <video> element proposal

From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:58:17 -0500
Message-ID: <45E970E9.5000705@metalab.unc.edu>
Karl Dubost wrote:

> Why it is not necessary good to mandate a specific format in a 
> specification
> 
> 
> * When to standardize, especially an RDF API
>   Dan Connolly
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/03/orthogonal_specifications_is_good


That makes some sense, though reading it one thing jumps out at me. Why 
can we not link to a video with an img element? Why can't we link to a 
Flash animation or SVG or SMIL with an img element? Isn't a video just 
another image format? If the specifications really are orthogonal, then 
the media format shouldn't be relevant.

By the way, I checked. HTML 4.0.1 never actually defines "image". It 
says imgs link to images, but it doesn't say anything about images being 
static that I noticed.

How orthogonal are the specs really?

-- 
?Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo at metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2007 04:58:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:53 UTC