Ok, I could understand that approach, with things like <img><video>
handled internally.
Is there then a case for doing <object> properly by specifying a
replacement, something like <plugin> / <extern>?
Gaz
On 16 Mar 2007, at 22:15, Robert Brodrecht wrote:
Andrew Sidwell said:
<flash> would be a poor choice of
something to put in a spec, simply because its use case is already
handled by <object>.
I wouldn't say it that way. I'd say "because flash requires a browser
plugin, we use object." Video is already handled by <object> but
we don't
want it to be any more. So, when you substitute "flash" with
"video" in
your sentence above, it is self-defeating. The reason Flash ought
to stay
in the object tag is because it is proprietary and requires a
plugin. If
Flash is ever open and freely available from Adobe, then <flash>
might not
be such a bad idea. Several video formats, on the other hand, are
supported by major operating systems natively, and there is no need to
have web developers jumping through hoops to use it. The theora
codec, I
assume, would be contained inside the browser itself, thus making
it one
format that would certainly be cross-browser and cross-platform
whether
the OS supported it or not.
--
Robert <http://robertdot.org>
