4 ms·
But see that's kinda stinky cos it's not semantic. You're not embedding the video element in the document so it can describe the content. It would be really coo
by bphogan 17y ago
But see that's kinda stinky cos it's not semantic. You're not embedding the video element in the document so it can describe the content. It would be really cool if the js somehow could remove the video element or something and add it back in... but I dunno how possible that is.
- jiaaro 17y agoHere's an idea: Why not just add an onclick that puts in the `<source>` tags? that way you still have a `<video>` tag but it has nothing to preload until you click it note: I havn't tested this approach Edit: Ok so I tried that in firefox and it doesn't work. But What if you make a video with 1 frame and a resolution of 1x1 and make that the source. Then you can replace that with onclick? (this one is more work than I'm willing to do out of curiosity, maybe someone else will try it?)
- dasil003 17y agoThe semantic part isn't even what really bothers me. I'm more concerned about requiring javascript for something that shouldn't need it.