[whatwg] Some <video> questions
lists07 at wiltgen.net
Mon Apr 7 10:33:13 PDT 2008
>> I'll be satisfied if someone tells me that <video> is not intended
>> to be the preferred way to embed video on web pages, in which
>> case I'll quietly return to my corner.
> I may be misinterpreting your tone, but from reading this discussion
> it seems that you're deliberately being difficult.
You're quoting a two-month old email on a topic I'd resigned myself to, and
I'm a bit reluctant to respond because any discussion about it seems to be
perceived as "difficult". That said...
> The Quicktime browser plugin is a video player.
Great, this helps me understand your terminology. In my world the (for
example) QuickTime plug-in is more just a "shim", since the plug-in isn't
playing the media but is instead instantiating QuickTime (the API) to play
the media. I think we'd be in general agreement if we spent a few minute
> The HTML5 spec should ultimately require at least one video format
> that will be available in all compliant implementations.
I understand, assuming that by "video format" you include an associated
audio bitstream format and container format. It might be clearer for us to
say "linear media format".
> It's a nonsense to suggest that <video> could be "player-agnostic",
> because <video> *is* a player.
In my world, <video> is just an HTML element. It's by definition
player-agnostic in the sense browsers will use different players (depending
on what's available on the host OS) to play the media associated with a
particular <video> element.
And just to repeat the facts as I understand them:
- <video> will universally support a base video/audio format ("linear media
format") defined by the final HTML 5 specification, assuming a suitable
combination of container and bitstream formats can be found.
- <video> will not universally support any other format.
Is that correct?
More information about the whatwg