- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:21:47 +0000
I do fully understand the points you make below, but I am not sure I fully subscribe to the logic. > <embed> is in HTML5 specifically for plugins. > > However, for <embed>, <object>, <iframe>, and <video>, the spec > doesn't > require that UAs implement the features using plugins or using native > code. For example, Mozilla natively supports SVG in <embed> (it > doesn't > require a plugin). Similarly, you could see <video> be implemented > as a > special-case plugin. That's an implementation detail and doesn't > really > affect the spec. I think we have then arrived at tags-for-everything. (<img><video><audio><embed><iframe> cover everything do they not?) However, I think if <object> is so widely derided by everyone, than I think it needs to be depreciated sooner rather than later. On 20 Mar 2007, at 09:25, Ian Hickson wrote: > Similarly, for backwards-compatibility reasons, adding anything to > <object> is a nightmare. We'd have to carefully examine every > addition to > make sure it didn't clash with existing content, for instance. > > Furthermore, overloading an element with various APIs results in > difficulties for authors. An author dealing with audio doesn't want to > think about aspect ratios, and an author dealing with video doesn't > want > to think about plugin parameters. > > This doesn't mean we have to specify everything as its own element. > There > are media types that it doesn't make sense to support with a specific > element (at least not yet); we don't want to have six dozen > elements with > each type having its own set of features (and bugs). We _do_ have a > generic element, <object>, which does work for generic inclusion. It > doesn't support media-specific features (like the Video API) but it > works > as a stop-gap until the media in question is important enough to > deserve > special treatment, if that happens. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20070320/965b6ad0/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 03:21:47 UTC