On Mar 5, 2007, at 4:47 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:56:31 +1100, Maik Merten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Elliotte Harold schrieb:
If we add a video element, should we for the same reasons add an
audio
element? If not, why not?
I'd say that audio and video actually are pretty similiar. They need
controls to start playback, to stop playback, to seek, to pause, ...
Perhaps there shouldn't be a <video> element but more something like
<mediastream audio="true" video="true"> or something like that.
At which point you start heading back to "object". It seems we
should either take the SMIL approach and make special containers
for each kind of media (how many kinds? What is a flash video that
has interactive bits? Or an SVG that is mostly video with a few
interaction choices? Or interactive SVG with some audio?), or fix
object...
<object> is generic embedding container. Having specific embedding
containers for particular types (<img>, <iframe>, the proposed
<video>) allows for better semantics and useful APIs targeted to the
content type.
I think it is ok to have both, especially since <object> provides an
escape hatch for new kinds of content types that have not yet grown
up enough to deserve first-class treatment.
Regards,
Maciej
