- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:01:32 -0700
On Mar 24, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:49:11 +0100, Alexey Feldgendler > <alexey at feldgendler.ru> wrote: >>> I don't really like this element. The name is confusing >>> especially with an attribute named src="". It also introduces yet >>> another void element, can't we just reuse <param>? The value="" >>> attribute of <param> would point to a resource and the type="" >>> attribute (which has been dropped) would be added back. I suppose >>> it might be considered overloading, but in a way we're just >>> defining how the processing model of a plugin could also work... >> >> If you put it inside <object> fallback content, it will be >> misunderstood by the current browsers as pertaining to the <object>. > > Apart from the fact that I'm not entirely sure about reusing > <param> anymore, I don't understand this argument. He's saying that if you put a <video> inside an <object> element as its fallback (not sure why you would do that, but let's suppose you did), and the <video> contains <param> elements, the <object> would incorrectly assume the <params> belong to it. I'm not sure if that's right (didn't test) but if so it would be a problem. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2007 14:01:32 UTC