Re: video codecs in HTML 5
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
>> <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.