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

[whatwg] <embed> and <object>

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:44:13 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907150743300.9397@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009, Thomas Broyer wrote:
> 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

That's already allowed as currently specced. User agents are allowed to 
handle any type they want to handle.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 00:44:13 UTC

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