- From: Thomas Broyer <t.broyer@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:03:06 +0200
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2009, Thomas Broyer wrote: >> >> Though, now that HTML5 introduces <video> and <audio>, I wonder if >> <object> couldn't be equivalent to those when type of the resource is >> some video or sound... > > <object> doesn't expose the <video> or <audio> API, and doing so would be > significantly more complicated than desired. The overloading of <object> > as it already is was a mistake that we don't want to continue making. I wasn't talking about APIs! Just saying that now that HTML5 makes audio and video are first-class web citizen, then maybe it should say that: - if the /resource type/ starts with "audio/" and support for sounds has not been disabled, then the <object> element represents the specified sound or audio stream - if the /resource type/ starts with "video/" and support for videos has not been disabled, then the <object> element represents the specified video -- Thomas Broyer
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 00:03:06 UTC