On 29/01/2008, at 6:17 PM, Charles wrote:
Maciej,
But I think the premise of the question misses the point of the
<video> element.
I may very well be completely missing the point.
I'll be satisfied if someone tells me that <video> is not intended
to be the
preferred way to embed video on web pages, in which case I'll
quietly return
to my corner.
It is the preferred way to embed *video* not a video player, just
pure unadorned video -- there
is no direct interface to the underlying implementation. You appear
to be having difficulty
distinguishing QuickTime the plugin, from QuickTime the framework --
On MacOS quicktime
is the standard system framework that applications use for decoding
video -- it is equivalent (in
this sense) to gstreamer in gtk, etc.
<video> is *not* an <object> replacement -- its sole purpose is to
provide support for video
content that is native to html, and through player can be implemented
and controlled through
JS and CSS.
People now commonly use Flash to write video players because the
old-school way of embedding video [...] was not capable or
consistent enough.
There are lots of reasons that people use Flash, but it's no easier or
harder to embed than any other player/runtime.
It is designed to embed video, not video players implemented in
other technologies.
But in Safari, <video> = QuickTime. Is that not a player-centric
rather
than a content-centric design?
Once again, <video> is a html-native mechanism for supporting video
media, not a plugin interface
there is no sense in having other runtimes present in it as that
would defy the whole idea of being
*native*
--Oliver
-- Charles
