On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 19:23:25 +0100, Chris Messina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps rel-enclosure doesn't actually make sense long term. Given
that relEnclosure, AFAIK, was grafted onto RSS to allow for media
being "attached" to feeds, rel-enclosure doesn't make sense in your
regular browser-consumed webpages because we've got <embed> and
<object>. If RSS had been able to support inline rich media, wouldn't
those tags have sufficed?
Video/audio is problematic along with <object>. It's memory intensive -
especially on a blog with lots of blog entries. The practice right now is
an image link to the video. Something that's used more and more is a
rel="enclosure" link that is transformed to an <object> by javascript when
clicked (my preferred way of embedding video).
And rel-enclosure is not just for audio and video. Using <object> is not
always desirable - embedding zip files, photoshop files and PDF's with
additional information directly in the page is rarely a good idea (a quick
way to break the browser, I bet). they are still enclosures.
- Andreas
--
<URL: http://www.solitude.dk/ >
Commentary on media, communication, culture and technology.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
