Re:Evolution of <img>: Gif without the GIF
by libertine on Monday December 04, 2017 @12:46PM
(#15845790)
When you have multiple videos - even without audio - the autoplay stops working.
So it kind of never works like gifs.
Re:Evolution of <img>: Gif without the GIF
by cflat on Monday December 04, 2017 @12:23PM
(#15845544)
the biggest challenge I've run into is big/legacy CMSes that simply can't get the templates updated to use <video> instead of <img>. It's why we can't have nice things.
Re:Evolution of <img>: Gif without the GIF
by seanalltogether on Monday December 04, 2017 @04:12PM
(#15847560)
> 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.
Re:Evolution of <img>: Gif without the GIF
by lojack on Monday December 04, 2017 @04:33PM
(#15847723)
Those tags add semantic meaning. Putting video in your img tag as opposed to fixing the video tag does the opposite.
Re:Evolution of <img>: Gif without the GIF
by Dylan16807 on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @02:39AM
(#15850417)
It doesn't "do the opposite". It applies a different, better-fitting semantic meaning.
Re:Evolution of <img>: Gif without the GIF
by seanalltogether on Monday December 04, 2017 @05:06PM
(#15848013)
Yup, 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.
Re:Evolution of <img>: Gif without the GIF
by eberkund on Monday December 04, 2017 @12:04PM
(#15845385)
But a GIF was never an image, it's like now they are saying okay we called this video an "animated image" which is somehow different from a video so therefore all videos are images and should go in the image tag.
"Autoplay video is used for ads and thus controlled by browsers" (and <img> video won't have the same development?!) and "<video> can't be saved" (yes, if you use a JavaScript player that interferes with it, if you just link in a file through a <video> tag at least FF and Chrome do have a save option) seem especially nonsensical.
I guess there is some semantic argument for "videos that should act like images", but I somehow doubt that'll happen nicely...