> GIFs are images and so displayed as such with little concept of play-control > A video format communicate that you might want to pause for example. > I beli

> GIFs are images and so displayed as such with little concept of play-control > A video format communicate that you might want to pause for example. > I believe a GIF-killer will need to be considered an image as a format. If we consider animated GIF to be an image, then the distinction between "image" and "video" is pretty arbitrary. I would say the distinction isn't inherent to the format either. It's inherent to the HTML tag. There's no reason we couldn't support `<img src="foo.av1" />` or `<video src="bar.gif" />` with the appropriate UI for each. I actually think this is a symptom of something bigger: browsers (and most other applications) shouldn't care about media formats at all; that's a low-level concern of the OS/stdlib. The Datatypes system of AmigaOS (and later BeOS) is an example of how this could be improved.