


From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:36:27 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0707020336l11e278b0wbe5b2664d43d576a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>

This could be used as an argument against all new elements. Adoption
will take time. Authors understand this. We are used to managing
fallback scenarios (long after the new versions of mainstream browsers
support HTML 5, we will have customers who have not ugpraded ...)

This is also a possible solution for all embedded content.

Example: Why introduce video and audio? Use object.

> Probably slightly more realistic than expecting people to use a new
> element that works nowhere. Given the current problems with
> interoperability in browsers I would rather focus on fixing existing
> features such as <object> than having some new type of plugin or image
> construct that does about the same. That will do nothing but increase the
> range of features browsers vendors will non interoperate properly on.

Yet audio/video have made it into the spec. Can we see the use cases
supporting the addition of these elements? Very interested to see if
those cases do/don't cover other embedded content.

Received on Monday, 2 July 2007 10:36:30 GMT
