3 ms·
> I don't see why the "issues" with the <video> tag couldn't be fixed in the video tag? You could make that argument for a lot of html tags. <address>, <sectio
by seanalltogether 9y ago
> I don't see why the "issues" with the <video> tag couldn't be fixed in the video tag?
You could make that argument for a lot of html tags. <address>, <section>, <figure>. Perhaps this is the safari teams opening argument for a new tag to be added to the spec.
- lojack 9y agoThose tags add semantic meaning. Putting video in your img tag as opposed to fixing the video tag does the opposite.
- seanalltogether 9y agoYup, and Safari may be signaling that <video> doesn't provide the right semantics for the expected behavior. <img> probably isn't the right place either and a new tag might be necessary, but I'll bet the desired code path for the browsers is closer to the img implementation then the video one.
- Dylan16807 9y agoIt doesn't "do the opposite". It applies a different, better-fitting semantic meaning.