W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2009

[whatwg] HTML 5 video tag questions

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:04:04 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0907140804u75fa43feyf3779cb550e04b1f@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Simon Pieters<simonp at opera.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:51:42 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How do y'all currently handle <noscript> content in a context that
>> allows scripts? ?What if there was a <video> or <object> in the
>> <noscript>?
>
> <noscript> is parsed as a CDATA element in the HTML parser when scripting is
> enabled. Any tags would be interpreted as text.
>
> This is not the case for <object> or <video> because it's ugly and doesn't
> work in XHTML. You'll notice that <noscript> is not allowed in XHTML5.

Hrm, that's no good then.  *Something* has to be done about it,
though, because just display:none'ing the fallback content doesn't
allow legacy video clients to be tried, which the spec explicitly
mentions (and just plain makes sense anyway - without it, <video>
adoption will be substantially slower).

We need *some* way to indicate that particular elements aren't to be
activated at all in certain circumstances.

On a side note, does the old <object><embed></> trick work only
because the browsers that support that use of <object> don't support
that use of <embed>, and vice versa?  So even though the <embed> is
parsed in an <object>-supporting browser, it doesn't activate?  If so,
then it seems like our problem is *too much* interop now.  ^_^

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 08:04:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:14 UTC