News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Evolution of <img>: Gif without the GIF. Parent comment

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 ]