Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I think <audio> can use almost the exact same APIs for most things as
<video>. This has the nice side benefit that new Audio() can just make
an <audio> element and provide all the relevant useful API.
To me, the distinction between the <audio> element and the Audio object
is that the former has a "place" in the document where that audio
content logically belongs, while the former is more of a global trigger
for web application sound effects.
<audio> could, for example, be rendered in-line with surrounding text in
an aural browser. A visual browser would presumably provide some kind of
representation in the document of the audio which the user can interact
with.
In other words, <audio> should be like <img> for sound.
Of course, what the visual representation of <audio> should be is not an
easy decision. It's even harder than <video>, because there's no
inherent visual content to overlay a UI on top of.
