On 6/24/07, Spartanicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Allan Sandfeld Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thus, I suggest to change the wording to "User agents must support
>> Theora video and Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format".
>>
>Or a clear sign that the video tag was doomed to failure anyway. I really
>can't imagine Microsoft or even Apple to let a multi-billion industry go, for
>the sake of implementing HTML5.
I've been struggling with the question what purpose the <video> element
serves if interop isn't going to be achieved, which is the current state
of affairs.
Afaics as it stands the following codec support is likely:
IE: Windows Media and possibly MPEG4
Apple: Quicktime and MPEG4
Opera: uncertain, but not likely to support Quicktime or Windows Media
Mozilla: uncertain, but not likely to support Quicktime or Windows Media
Afaics the currently most used way to serve video is through Flash. From
a content provider's point of view Flash has very good client support,
but the quality vs bitrate ratio isn't great. Flash is likely to improve
on that latter point long before browser support for the <video> element
will reach a level for content providers to consider using it.
I understand the desire amongst browser manufacturers to support video
content natively regardless of the above, but afaics native browser
support will be irrelevant since content providers are unlikely to start
serving content using the <video> element and continue using Flash.
>Keeping it, or changing to wording will not
>change the behavior of Microsoft and Apple, but will only ensure that HTML5
>will never become fully supported in the major browsers.
Support for the <video> element without a common codec may well become
fully supported, but pointless. Consequently and with regret I favour
removing <video> from the spec.
A <video> element that is natively part of html and has a standard set
of API functions will enable applications that are impossible today,
even with embedded elements such as flash.
Imagine e.g. a mash-up of video extracts from several video hosting
sites where you take an offset from each and put them together in a
new video without having to manually edit that content. Only if all
videos are in the same format and all hosting sites provide the same
API will such a mashup be possible.
I for one see the <video> and <audio> elements as one of the main
novelties that make html5 important.
If we put a requirement into the spec for a common baseline codec and
the value of that can be demonstrated through several hosting sites -
e.g. wikipedia, archive.org - and new applications will be
demonstrated with the new <video> element - then I think there is a
reason to go forward.
In any case: plugins can be written for IE and for Safari that make
them support Ogg Theora and the <video> tag, even if neither Microsoft
nor Apple will be distributing them. And as a work-around at the
beginning, java applets such as cortado enable Ogg Theora support even
without a need for native support.
Where there's a will, there's a way. We have to do what is right, not
what is politically acceptable.
Regards,
Silvia.
