On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:39:34PM +0000, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
