[whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the <video> element
mk98762 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 24 07:21:56 PDT 2007
"Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Imo for content providers to choose <video> over Flash, client support
>> needs to be close to Flash. Requiring IE and Safari users to go and
>> download and install third party software to play content would imo be
>> considered too much of a hindrance when Flash "simply works".
>Cortado is a java applet that "simply works" (apart from a few bugs :)
>and provides Ogg Theora support to Web Browsers even now. There is no
>need to install third-party-software, apart from Java.
>For Flash video to work, you have to have the Flash plugin installed.
>For Cortado to work, you have to have Java installed. The install-base
>of Flash and Cortado is probably comparable. So, "client support needs
>to be close to Flash" can be fulfilled with a bit of effort.
Personally I detest Java (resource hog, slow as wading through molasses)
and don't have it installed, so forgive my potential ignorance. Why
create an HTML <video> element with the express purpose of supporting
video natively in clients if video needs to be coded as a Java applet
with Java handling it? And didn't MS stop including their "Java" in
recent OSs after they lost the court case with Sun?
More information about the whatwg