Evolution of &lt;img&gt;: Gif without the GIF

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]