I remember only one vendor supporting this, and it wasn't Mozilla.

On 31 May 2010, at 18:03, Ryan Florence wrote:

> <video> 
>   <src ogg>
>   <src h264>
>   <obj></obj> <!-- flash fallback -->
> </video>
> 
> You might be working too hard.  HTML5 video tags were thought out to be 
> backward compatible.
> 
> On May 31, 2010, at 11:01 AM, Aaron Newton wrote:
> 
>> It would be better to try and determine if their browser supports the html5 
>> embeddable video tag in some way.
>> 
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:08 AM, brook <[email protected]> wrote:
>> i am not switching behaviors exactly --- i am creating a video handler
>> and i want to determine what type of browser they are using to decide
>> what video source to load.
>> 
>> On May 31, 3:06 am, Aaron Newton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Also note that you really shouldn't switch your behavior on browser version
>> > if you can help it. You should try and detect if the browser supports a
>> > feature - 1.3 does some of this, for example:
>> >
>> >         Features: {
>> >                 xpath: !!(document.evaluate),
>> >                 air: !!(window.runtime),
>> >                 query: !!(document.querySelector),
>> >                 json: !!(window.JSON)
>> >         },
>> >
>> > If there's a feature you want to use (html 5 stuff) you should devise a 
>> > test
>> > that determines if that feature is available, regardless of the browser 
>> > type
>> > or version. That's not always possible, but most of the time it is.
>> >
>> > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM, brook <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > thats great news!   i´ve me hesitating jumping into 1.3 - wanting let
>> > > it get to as stable state as possible but it sounds like i need to
>> > > just bite the bullet.  mainly i just want to start using slick.
>> > > hurray.b
>> >
>> > > On May 30, 2:21 pm, Fábio M. Costa <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > > On 1.3 there is a Browser.version that indicates the browser version, 
>> > > > the
>> > > > Engine's version.
>> > > > On a side note, the docs for -core is being increased a lot by Arian on
>> > > the
>> > > > new 1.3 version.
>> > > > Thank you for the feedback guys.
>> >
>> > > > --
>> > > > Fábio Miranda Costa
>> > > > Solucione Sistemas
>> > > > Engenheiro de interfaces
>> > > > Twitter: fabiomirandahttp://solucione.info
>> >
>> > > > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:14 PM, אריה גלזר <[email protected]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > i'm having the same difficulty.
>> > > > > there are 2 main problems:
>> > > > > 1. no where in the docs is there a way for me to realize that version
>> > > is
>> > > > > not the public one. i for one had a lot of difficulty finding out why
>> > > doing
>> > > > > if (Browser.Engine.version < 7) would work on IE8, until i
>> > > console.loged it
>> > > > > and found out it's different.
>> > > > > 2. no where in the docs is there a list of what i am to expect from
>> > > > > different borwsers and vendors.
>> >
>> > > > > now, i'm not saying that i'm waiting for you guys to do this. i'll be
>> > > happy
>> > > > > to create such a table. but i have no clue of where to find this 
>> > > > > info,
>> > > and
>> > > > > thus i'm stuck with trial and error, which is a very annoying way of
>> > > doing
>> > > > > this (and confusing for new developers)
>> >
>> > > > > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Oskar Krawczyk <
>> > > [email protected]>wrote:
>> >
>> > > > >> Version of the engine, not the browser... Look it up.
>> >
>> > > > >> On 30 May 2010, at 18:28, brook wrote:
>> >
>> > > > >> > Hi guys -  Does anyone know what  "Browser.Engine.version" 
>> > > > >> > returns?
>> >
>> > > > >> > For instance i am on firefox right now and its giving me "19".   I
>> > > had
>> > > > >> > thought it was going to say 3.6.3 or something.    can someone 
>> > > > >> > tell
>> > > me
>> > > > >> > how to translate between something like 19 - to 3.6.3 ... 
>> > > > >> > obviously
>> > > > >> > not just for firefox but for all browsers.
>> >
>> > > > >> > Thanks.Brook
>> >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Arieh Glazer
>> > > > > אריה גלזר
>> > > > > 052-5348-561
>> > > > > 5561
>> 
> 

Reply via email to