[whatwg] HTML 5 video tag questions
jonas at sicking.cc
Mon Jul 13 02:14:21 PDT 2009
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>> >> Hmm.. is that good? What if you want to use an <object> (to use flash
>> >> or java) or a <img> as fallback?
>> > Then you do it with script.
>> > The design is based around the assumption that we will eventually find
>> > a common codec so that fallback won't ever be needed in supporting
>> > UAs.
>> I agree that the current design makes sense once there is a common codec
>> supported across all browsers. However currently it seems like we might
>> not reach that point until after all major browsers support <video>.
>> What would be the downside of displaying the fallback contents if none
>> of the videos can be displayed due to unsupported codecs?
> When would you fall back? For example, while parsing, would you fall back
> in between the <video> element being parsed and the first <source> element
> being parsed?
You could display the fallback once you've reached the </video> and
not found an acceptable <source>. Technically it'd be when you pop the
video element off the stack of open elements. I don't even think it'd
be hard to pull down all <source>s and check that none of them are
supported before displaying the fallback if types aren't specified on
the <source> element.
> The design you describe is what <object> tried to do, and it proved to be
> extremely problematic in practice -- and that was without another built-in
> fallback mechanism to complicate matters.
While <object> has had a very poor implementation story, I don't think
this was a big reason for that.
Robert O'Callahan, Boris Zbarsky and other gecko layout folks can
answer this better, but at least in gecko I don't think this part of
object was particularly hard to implement correctly once we actually
Has any browser vendor argued against displaying the fallback due to
high implementation burden?
More information about the whatwg