[whatwg] H.264-in-<video> vs plugin APIs
ngompa13 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 11:55:30 PDT 2009
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Simon Spiegel <simon at simifilm.ch> wrote:
> On 14.06.2009, at 04:02, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> As for Safari and any other software on the Mac that is using the
>> QuickTime framework, there is XiphQT to provide support. It's a
>> QuickTime component and therefore no different to installing a Flash
>> plugin, thus you can also count Safari as a browser that has support
>> for Ogg Theora/Vorbis, even if I'm sure people from Apple would not
>> like to see it this way.
> It's actually quite different, on a technical level and for the user. Flash
> is a browser plugin and XiphQT is an additional Quicktime codec. Quicktime
> has supported third party codec for years; the whole point of this is that
> any app which uses Quicktime can make use of these third party codecs – like
> Safari does. A browser plugin like Flash OTOH is useless outside the
> browser. So like I said: these are quite different things on several level.
> Simon Spiegel
> Steinhaldenstr. 50
> 8002 Zürich
> Telephon: ++41 44 451 5334
> Mobophon: ++41 76 459 60 39
> „Was soll aus mir mal werden, wenn ich mal nicht mehr bin?“ Robert
It's all well and good that XiphQT can be used to support <video> and
<audio> tags in Apple's build of WebKit for Safari, which I have tested and
see to be truth, but a problem I see is that people won't KNOW where to get
the codecs. I remember that QuickTime used to be able to grab codecs and
install them from the internet like RealPlayer does now. For future versions
of QuickTime, like the rumored QuickTime X, will that be brought back?
It makes sense that QuickTime should be able to search and grab the XiphQT
codecs if they are needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg