- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:55:23 +0000
This topic is worrying me slightly, as I can only see two possible outcomes :- using <object> for everything, images <object type="image/jpeg" data="some.jpg"> video <object type="application/ogg" data="video.ogg"> or defining separate tags for all possible content :- <image> <video> <sound> <etc...> As I can't see how it can be a mix and match of the two approaches. Gareth On 16 Mar 2007, at 19:40, James Justin Harrell wrote: > > --- Matthew Raymond <mattraymond at earthlink.net> wrote: > >> It's all about ease of authoring. If you were new to HTML, >> would you >> want to do this... >> >> | <object data="TheEarth.mpeg" type="video/ogg-theora"></object> >> >> ...Or this... >> >> | <video src="TheEarth.mpeg"></video> >> >> Do you know the MIME type for Ogg Theora? I don't. I made it >> up. If >> the MIME type on the object listed doesn't say "video" in it, >> would you >> even know if the <object> element was for a video??? > > The type attribute for object elements is optional if the data > attribute is present. That's not > new either - it was also specified that way in HTML 4.01. > > Some browsers have not been compliant about it, but people will > probably be able to use an object > element without a type attribute without worry before they're able > to use a video element without > worry. > > There's several good reasons for introducing a video element, but I > don't consider easier markup > to be one of them.
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 13:55:23 UTC