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

[whatwg] Video proposals

From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:55:23 +0000
Message-ID: <3FBCA280-FF9A-44E2-A2EE-DA5A6B35B2A8@gmail.com>
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

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