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

[whatwg] <video>? <img>? css?

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 00:53:06 +0100
Message-ID: <17920.29666.20179.364902@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Also sprach Stuart Parmenter:

 > I'm curious why people feel that adding another element is the way to
 > go.  Why do people not want to use <img>? 

Moving video with sound and still pictures are sufficiently different
that I think they warrant two different elements. <video> feels right.
Also, <img> is impractical as it's empty.

 > I'd like to see us have the ability to do video in both <img> and in
 > CSS places (background: url(foo.mpg)

Syntactically, this is valid CSS code. Don't expect implementations to
support it, though. Implementors would be facing a bunch of issues.
For example, should the audio play in the background all the time? I
can see some neat effects, but more frustrated users. 

Cheers,

-h&kon
              H?kon Wium Lie                          CTO ??e??
howcome at opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:53:06 UTC

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