On Jul 5, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:52:43 +0200, Robert Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
These are not requested, these are being implemented. The
specification is there to make sure they are implemented in an
interoperable way. They help making HTML a more viable open
alternative to Flash, Flex, Silverlight, etc.
No... they don't.
How are they not helping with that?
You may have notice, but the web is filled with audio and video
that's served using HTML 4.01 with virtually no problems for sites
and authors. They don't really help that much because, much more
than <picture> they add nothing to authoring over simply using the
<object. element. They change the language in inconsistent ways that
will confuse authors (why add <video>, but deprecate <applet.t>?) and
Why allow fallback for motion video, but not a still image?). They
are not supported in every UA. I could add more of the excuses you've
given me for <picture>, but I'll stop there. The big difference
between <picture> and <video> and <audio> is that <picture> actually
adds something to the language that simplifies the work of authors:
<video> and <audio>, not so much.
