- From: Gareth Hay <gazhay@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:31:41 +0000
I defer on the legal side, i really do, On 23 Mar 2007, at 12:18, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote: > > I mean what have we truly achieved if the new VIDEO element means that > web page developers still have to support Windows Media for Windows > clients, MPEG4 for Apple systems and Ogg for Linux/Unix systems? I > think > in that case most web developers would be more than happy to just > stick > to using flash video, at least they can get away with encoding once > and > have a decent chance of all platforms supporting it. > For the <video> tag to work in the situation you describe, across platforms and browsers means introducing a codec into the spec. *If* this is possible, it then depends on browser developers following the spec, *If* they do that, it is still possible for developers to use the video they already have encoded, in the new video tag (as I can't see a video tag working if you *require* a specific codec for all content), to the exclusion of those who's UA don't support it, and a lot of people will only care if it works in IE. I'm with you, we should aim for the sky, I just think there are too many road blocks in the way. Gareth
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 05:31:41 UTC