Also sprach Stuart Parmenter:
> I'm curious why people feel that adding another element is the way to
> go. Why do people not want to use <img>?
Moving video with sound and still pictures are sufficiently different
that I think they warrant two different elements. <video> feels right.
Also, <img> is impractical as it's empty.
> I'd like to see us have the ability to do video in both <img> and in
> CSS places (background: url(foo.mpg)
Syntactically, this is valid CSS code. Don't expect implementations to
support it, though. Implementors would be facing a bunch of issues.
For example, should the audio play in the background all the time? I
can see some neat effects, but more frustrated users.
Cheers,
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.opera.com/howcome
