4 ms·
"a video element that isn’t interoperable" The img tag isn't hugely interoperable, but it'd be a sad web without images. <audio> is a huge step up from the cur
by axod 18y ago
"a video element that isn’t interoperable"
The img tag isn't hugely interoperable, but it'd be a sad web without images. <audio> is a huge step up from the current madness of <object> <bgsound> <embed> or <flash>.
Are people out there really using XHTML still? It'd be interesting to do a poll to see how many are using XHTML vs HTML.
- tdoggette 18y agoI'd also be interested to see what this crowd uses.
- ruddzw 18y agoI'm currently taking a web design course, and we're supposed to be using XHTML. Strict. We lose points if we don't have all our pages validate as XHTML Strict. :) So yes, some people are still using XHTML, and thinking it's better.
- axod 18y agoMy experience/understanding has been that XHTML bears little relation to the real world though - iframe is an invalid XHTML element?
- ZeroGravitas 18y agoI think the issue here that he is referring to (obliquely) is the disagreement on video codecs. So to take your img example it would be analogous to a specification for img where Firefox was supporting PNG (but not GIF) and Safari supporting GIF (but not PNG) and IE supporting neither but Microsoft is at the same time pushing a closed source browser plugin that can show images in a Microsoft proprietary and patented format that sits outside of HTML. That would be a "sad web" too, even if it technically had images. He's not (imho) against the video tag in any way, just pointing it out as an example of the (inherently) political squabbling and consequent craziness that surround standardization in a multi-billion pound market.
- axod 18y agoSure, it's a pain, but I think it has to happen, and just like images, where jpg/gif/png emerged victorious, some video formats will emerge that are supported everywhere. Maybe just wishful thinking...