philipj at opera.com
Wed Jun 18 03:34:17 PDT 2008
It seems to me that it's a good idea to wait with this until we know
more about what will happen with baseline codecs etc.
Implementation-wise it might be less than trivial to return an
exhaustive list of all supported mime-types if the underlying framework
doesn't use the concept of mime-types, but can say when given a few
second-guess this doesn't seem great
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 12:18 +0200, j at oil21.org wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 12:03 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > Why is that needed? The elements provide a way to link to multiple codecs
> > of which the user agent will then make a choice.
> i do not intend to provide multiple codecs since that would require
> multiple backend implementations for playing files form an offset,
> encoding files in multiple codecs on the server, more disk space etc,
> instead i would only use the <video> tag if the codec i use is supported
> and fall back to other means via <object> / java / flash or whatever to
> playback the video or indicate that the user has to install a
> qt/dshow/gstreamer plugin. in an ideal world i could use <video> like i
> can use <img> now and be done with it, but since this is not the case we
> need tools to make the best out of <video>, not knowing what the browser
> supports and just hoping that it could work is not an option.
More information about the whatwg