- From: Brian Blakely <anewpage.media@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:12:14 -0500
Bjartur, Great contribution, greatly appreciated. I am in partial agreement with you, and an XHTML2 approach was certainly something I pondered. A new tag, however, makes more sense in the HTML5 way of doing things, in which native media types are getting their own semantic tags: <audio/> (sound), <video/> (yeah, video), <img/> (bitmap image), <svg/> (vector image), <canvas/> (generated bitmap image) and I am proposing <model/> (3D vector). Not to mention, at this stage of browser development, "<object/>" appears to be synonymous with "other" -- in other words, plug-ins. I am a believer in a wide variety of semantic tags in order to finely describe data, and while not having to develop more spec is an attractive proposition, the whole point of a new version of HTML is to write a new HTML spec. -Brian On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95 at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Brian, > I quite don't see the point of yet another media element; we've got > enaugh of 'em already. IMO we should recommend only <object>. Weither > it's 1D (eg a song), 2D (eg an image) or 3D (eg a model), visual or > audio and interactive or not is defined by the type attribute. The UA > simply uses the metadata associated with the file. Even if someone > wants to link to some new type of media, he simply registers the media > type at IANA and links to it. No adding elements to the spec needed, > and no HTML 5 spec needs to be written. > > If you want new axis and on-the-fly dynamic rotation stuff you should > rather add it to the ECMAScript standard (or ECMAScript bindings to 3D > formats). Send mail to Chronos and/or ECMA. Better 3D styling: send > mail to the CSS WG. > > But obviously I'm a guy that thinks that the new media elements (and > <img>) SHOULD NOT be used -- at all. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20091101/1d0d1bf3/attachment.htm>
Received on Sunday, 1 November 2009 15:12:14 UTC