Re: video codecs in HTML 5

[Maik Merten <maikmerten@gmx.net>]

Florian Weimer schrieb:
> * Maik Merten:
> 
>> <img> gives clear semantics: It's an image.
> 
> Animated GIF, anyone?

Still an image as the usual GIF animations aren't exactly qualifying as
true "films".


>> <video> gives clear semantics: Video.
> 
> Just because something is labled as "video", it's semantics aren't
> suddenly clear.

But it's far more specific than <object> and exposes a streamlined API
for video usages.

Anyway, I guess the "why?" question is better delt with on the whatwg
mailing list. Personally I don't really care if it's <object>, <video>,
<streamingmedia> or <whatever> as long as the recommended functionality
is still implementable in truly free software.