On Mar 24, 2007, at 3:07 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:49:11 +0100, Alexey Feldgendler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't really like this element. The name is confusing
especially with an attribute named src="". It also introduces yet
another void element, can't we just reuse <param>? The value=""
attribute of <param> would point to a resource and the type=""
attribute (which has been dropped) would be added back. I suppose
it might be considered overloading, but in a way we're just
defining how the processing model of a plugin could also work...
If you put it inside <object> fallback content, it will be
misunderstood by the current browsers as pertaining to the <object>.
Apart from the fact that I'm not entirely sure about reusing
<param> anymore, I don't understand this argument.
He's saying that if you put a <video> inside an <object> element as
its fallback (not sure why you would do that, but let's suppose you
did), and the <video> contains <param> elements, the <object> would
incorrectly assume the <params> belong to it. I'm not sure if that's
right (didn't test) but if so it would be a problem.
Regards,
Maciej
