[whatwg] Scripted querying of <video> capabilities

[João Eiras]

> On a browser that supports video but not Ogg

Then the browser does not support <video>. The spec mandates both <video>  
element support + ogg theora support. Else the implementation is  
incomplete.
It would be the same like have <img> without the UA not supporting any  
kind of image format.

But I agree though that we need an API to test UA capabilities, because  
the list of supported video and audio formats can grow, and have several  
different implementations in different states in different UAs, therefore  
hiding this information from the web page would result in more bloated  
javascript code doing more broken browser sniffing.

Just 2 cents.

Bye.


On , Chris Double <chris.double at double.co.nz> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
> <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl> wrote:
>> What is the advantage of using JavaScript to determine a viable  
>> embedding
>> method over using alternative streams and fallback content that can  
>> include
>> the OBJECT element where appropriate?
>
> <video src="foo.ogg">
>   fallback content
> </video>
>
> On a browser that doesn't support video this will use the fallback
> content (OBJECT, etc) to instantiate something that can play the Ogg
> file. On a browser that supports video and Ogg it will play the video.
> On a browser that supports video but not Ogg, how do you then
> instantiate a fallback that can play the Ogg file. Without JavaScript
> and without providing an alternative source re-encoded in a different
> format.
>
> Chris.