- From: Nathanael Ritz <nathanritz@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:21:36 -0700
I propose that the video and audio elements have some sort of fallback. Not for accessibility purposes, as that point has been addressed in the spec. But so that it is clear there was supposed to be a video (or audio) resource that for whatever reason can't be seen. Isn't the especially important considering the current debate about .ogg vs other formats as the standard? On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:50:30 +0100, Nathanael Ritz <nathanritz at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> "Content may be provided inside the video element. User agents should not >> show this content to the user; it is intended for older Web browsers which >> do not support video, so that legacy video plugins can be tried, or to show >> text to the users of these older browser informing them of how to access the >> video contents." >> >> Could the language not be updated here to include showing fallback content >> along side an alert) when video cannot be found or rendered? >> > > The video and audio elements do not have fallback like the object or img > element. They are different. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090318/a0a23aaa/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 08:21:36 UTC