Re: video codecs in HTML 5
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:39:34PM +0000, Sam Morris <sam@robots.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 14:26 +0100, Maik Merten wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb:
> > > Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag <video> is completely
> > > orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support
> > > it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent
> > > <embed> tag or whatever internally...
> >
> > The <video> tag is supposed to offer "first class" support for video
> > content just like <img> usually supports JPEG and GIF in a way so
> > content providers can rely on it.
> >
> > To the end user it shouldn't matter if <video> is transformed to <embed>
> > on-the-fly.
>
> I thought that HTML was going in the other direction--deprecating <img>
> in favour of the already-existing and perfectly logical <object>.
>
> I really can't see what the point of this <video> tag is in the first
> place.
I have not followed the latest evolutions of the thing, but the
deprecation of <img> in favour of <object> may have been an xhtml2 goal,
while <video> might be an html5 thingy...
Mike
Reply to: