On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:26 +0100, Maik Merten wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: > > Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag <video> is completely > > orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support > > it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent > > <embed> tag or whatever internally... > > The <video> tag is supposed to offer "first class" support for video > content just like <img> usually supports JPEG and GIF in a way so > content providers can rely on it. > > To the end user it shouldn't matter if <video> is transformed to <embed> > on-the-fly.
I thought that HTML was going in the other direction--deprecating <img> in favour of the already-existing and perfectly logical <object>. I really can't see what the point of this <video> tag is in the first place. -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
