- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:08:17 +0000
Ok, I could understand that approach, with things like <img><video> handled internally. Is there then a case for doing <object> properly by specifying a replacement, something like <plugin> / <extern>? Gaz On 16 Mar 2007, at 22:15, Robert Brodrecht wrote: > > 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 15:08:17 UTC