- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 17:08:55 -0800
On Mar 5, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:56:31 +1100, Maik Merten > <maikmerten at gmx.net> wrote: > >> Elliotte Harold schrieb: >>> If we add a video element, should we for the same reasons add an >>> audio >>> element? If not, why not? >> >> I'd say that audio and video actually are pretty similiar. They need >> controls to start playback, to stop playback, to seek, to pause, ... >> >> Perhaps there shouldn't be a <video> element but more something like >> <mediastream audio="true" video="true"> or something like that. > > At which point you start heading back to "object". It seems we > should either take the SMIL approach and make special containers > for each kind of media (how many kinds? What is a flash video that > has interactive bits? Or an SVG that is mostly video with a few > interaction choices? Or interactive SVG with some audio?), or fix > object... <object> is generic embedding container. Having specific embedding containers for particular types (<img>, <iframe>, the proposed <video>) allows for better semantics and useful APIs targeted to the content type. I think it is ok to have both, especially since <object> provides an escape hatch for new kinds of content types that have not yet grown up enough to deserve first-class treatment. Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 17:08:55 UTC