W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:32:42 +0900
Message-ID: <45FA481A.7030006@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>
CC: public-html@w3.org, WHAT Working Group Mailing List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
Robert Brodrecht schreef:
>>
>> Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there is a single reason 
>> why the browser couldn’t play back content embedded with an <object> 
>> tag, like it’s supposed to. What’s more, that would allow it to work 
>> with existing web content, too. Plus it’s backwards compatible.
>>
>
> I'm quite certain that the video element was meant to fight things 
> like Flash because it would offer cross-platform video easily through 
> an open codec.  Currently, Flash is the closest thing we have to 
> cross-platform video.  Flash is a closed, proprietary, expensive 
> technology.  Theora is an open, free technology.  The video element is 
> an ideological addition that would allow fallback.  It could easily 
> fall back to an object element during the transition into browser 
> support, which would be backward compatible with HMTL 4.
>
> Video on the web is difficult.  In this day, it shouldn't be.

Sure, native video playback, yay. But what has that got to do with 
creating a <video> element instead of using <object>. Objects can play 
Theora, too, you know. Natively. Just like browsers can render SVG in 
<object> tags, natively.


~Grauw

-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.




Received on Friday, 16 March 2007 07:33:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 March 2007 07:33:19 GMT