On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:39:46 +0200, Andrew Scherkus <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>
> Not that I except this discussion to go anywhere, but out of
curiosity I
> checked how Firefox/Safari/Chrome actually implement canPlayType:
>
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Video_type_parameters#Browser_Support
>
> Firefox is conservative and honest (except maybe for "audio/wav;
> codecs=0", what could you do with the RIFF DATA chunk?) Safari gets
> maybe/probably backwards compared to what the spec suggests. Chrome
> seems to ignore the codecs parameter, claiming "probably" even for
bogus
> codecs. Authors obviously can't trust the distinction between "maybe"
> and "probably" to any extent.
That certainly is unfortunate.
Thanks for calling us out :)
We've addressed this in our latest builds. We now fall somewhere between
Firefox and Safari in terms of conservativeness and honesty.
We still give bogus codecs a "maybe" if the container is supported, since
that seems to be what the spec suggests.
That doesn't match my reading of the spec...
The spec says
"The canPlayType(type) method must return the empty string if type is a
type that the user agent knows it cannot render;"
and
"A type that the user agent knows it cannot render is one that describes a
resource that the user agent definitely does not support, for example
because it doesn't recognize the container type, or it doesn't support the
listed codecs."
A "probably" is only for both a
container and codec match.
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
