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

[whatwg] Video proposals

From: Robert Brodrecht <whatwg@robertdot.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:15:59 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <52670.>

Andrew Sidwell said:
> <flash> would be a poor choice of
> something to put in a spec, simply because its use case is already
> handled by <object>.

I wouldn't say it that way.  I'd say "because flash requires a browser
plugin, we use object."  Video is already handled by <object> but we don't
want it to be any more.  So, when you substitute "flash" with "video" in
your sentence above, it is self-defeating.  The reason Flash ought to stay
in the object tag is because it is proprietary and requires a plugin.  If
Flash is ever open and freely available from Adobe, then <flash> might not
be such a bad idea.  Several video formats, on the other hand, are
supported by major operating systems natively, and there is no need to
have web developers jumping through hoops to use it.  The theora codec, I
assume, would be contained inside the browser itself, thus making it one
format that would certainly be cross-browser and cross-platform whether
the OS supported it or not.

Robert <http://robertdot.org>
Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 15:15:59 UTC

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