W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2010

[whatwg] <INCLUDE> and links with @rel=embed

From: bjartur <svartman95@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 18:20:10 +0000
Message-ID: <4bf2da61.0a41df0a.28b5.ffff9a5c@mx.google.com>
--------

First of all I think we should use <a rel="embed" href="uri-ref"> instead of <source>. I'm not aware of previous proposals of that on this list. Feel free to provide links if it's already been proposed.

Second, all the responses I've seen so far have been along the lines of "it's the HTML5 way" (implying it's more of an XHTML 1 way, or [insert unfashionable tech here] way) or that video is so important that it deserves first-class treatment, and for the sake of completeness <audio> has to be included as well (though interactive content, text and 3D models don't deserve to be "first-class").

Isn't interactive content not important enaugh? What about text? What if one want's to link to interactive maps? svg at src? <a class="embed"..> with .embed {content: url(attr(href)) }? AFAIK CSS doesn't support it, and if it does <a rel="embed"..> could be used as well, even without explicit browser support.

Also someone wrote that one should use <object> for media-types that aren't supported in HTML yet. If you insist on keeping <video> and <audio>, think of this as a way for second-class media-types WHATWG hasn't approved/haven't been implemented to use some of the features of <video> and <audio>.

It's possible to specify the media type with attributes like @media for media queries and @type for the type of specific resources. That way media queries and MIME media types like audio, video, model and text can be reused, and all types IANA might add in the future.

IMO multimedia should be "first-class". And embedding more information than necessary in tag names is just /wrong/ and hampers compatibility and exensibility.
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 11:20:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:23 UTC