[whatwg] Some <video> questions
singer at apple.com
Tue Jan 29 16:28:33 PST 2008
At 16:06 -0800 29/01/08, Charles wrote:
>> Since browsers are free to implement native <video> support with a
>> pluggable backend...
>I understand, but something makes me think that this problem won't get
>solved when developers are just free to solve it. (This isn't a criticism
>of browser developers, BTW. There's no incentive to fix anything but the
>formats they care about.)
>Just to focus on one popular way of putting video on the web, Apple won't be
>supporting Flash video* and Adobe won't again package Flash as a QuickTime
>> Are you looking for a way for plugins, rather than the browser
>> itself, to handle <video>?
>Yes, with the brower handling handles precendence and event routing, etc.
But that's roughly what the cascading source elements do.
say you have 85% of your hits from two browser vendors, A and B, each
of whom has a specific optional format they support that you think is
better than the mandated one. You write
and the rest of your page gets a uniform interface no matter what
browser is in effect. Indeed, if you later decide to support
vendorC's format, you can insert that without changing anything else
-- the rest of the HTML, the scripts, event handling, nothing. Seems
like a big advantage to me. And if the mandated format is good
enough, you have (we intend) 100% coverage from that, also. You get
real integration with the rest of HTML and CSS etc. These all seem
like pretty strong advantages to me.
And, in addition, nothing stops a vendor from having plug-ins at the
browser, framework, or codec level, to offer further flexibility.
What am I missing that you don't like?
More information about the whatwg