[whatwg] <video> element proposal
shadow2531 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 1 21:59:21 PST 2007
On 3/1/07, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome at opera.com> wrote:
> Also sprach Shadow2531:
> > I think it'd be cool if the video element *just* supported theora.
> It's an interesting proposal.
> Traditionally, HTML/CSS hasn't said anything about which image/icon
> formats to support. Given, however, that (a) our ultimate goal is
> interoperability and that (b) many video formats are impossible to
> support on all devices (mostly due to legal issue), I think we should
> consider your proposal.
Yes, those are the main reasons for my suggestion.
I realize that just supporting one format like theora for example
means that a lot of the current content out there couldn't be handled
by the video element. However, the video element would be new and with
it new content. It doesn't necessarily need to be compatible with
everything (as it'd be a new element).
I don't think the video element can replace OBJECT and its wide (but
messy) handling of different things. I think VIDEO should be specific
and avoid all or most of the problems object has.
As you said, it'd be untraditional, but if the format is not
specified, I can see one browser's video element only supporting mpeg
and another only supporting wmv and another only supporting ogg and
other only support .flv etc.
With that said, if a browser can make its video element support as
many formats as it wants (which I believe most people want), I do
believe that its essential that
there be a base format that must (or strongly should) be supported.
That base format might be theora or something else.
Or, do most feel the video element should just support whatever the
browser wants and leave it at that?
More information about the whatwg