On a browser that supports video but not Ogg
Then the browser does not support <video>. The spec mandates both <video>
element support + ogg theora support. Else the implementation is
incomplete.
It would be the same like have <img> without the UA not supporting any
kind of image format.
But I agree though that we need an API to test UA capabilities, because
the list of supported video and audio formats can grow, and have several
different implementations in different states in different UAs, therefore
hiding this information from the web page would result in more bloated
javascript code doing more broken browser sniffing.
Just 2 cents.
Bye.
On , Chris Double <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Kristof Zelechovski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the advantage of using JavaScript to determine a viable
embedding
method over using alternative streams and fallback content that can
include
the OBJECT element where appropriate?
<video src="foo.ogg">
fallback content
</video>
On a browser that doesn't support video this will use the fallback
content (OBJECT, etc) to instantiate something that can play the Ogg
file. On a browser that supports video and Ogg it will play the video.
On a browser that supports video but not Ogg, how do you then
instantiate a fallback that can play the Ogg file. Without JavaScript
and without providing an alternative source re-encoded in a different
format.
Chris.
