- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:56:12 -0800
At 14:47 -0800 29/01/08, Charles wrote: > > [Oliver] Subsequently you turned it into the well covered topic >> of codecs... > >The question was: As designed, is <video> a cross-browser, cross-platform >solution for exactly one format, which is whatever is decided on as the >freely-implementable and royalty free combination of container and >compressed video and audio formats? > >Note that I'm not asking what those container and compressed media formats >might be. I'm just trying to understand the scope of the problem that ><video> is supposed to solve. Video is intended, I think to cover a) any mandated format that we settle on b) any recommended or vendor-selected formats that the vendors choose to support. This is in a context of a cascading series of <source> elements that can indicate, in preference order, which encodings the author is providing. Charles, you know we're working on (a); at the moment, we're covering (b) since (a) isn't yet settled. But in the meantime there's lots of work also to be done on the question of what attributes, events, and DOM interface (for example) are right for this element, unifying that behavior. The webkit support is intended to allow you to explore those, and other, aspects of integration (e.g. sizing integrated into the browser also). Note that webkit is open-source, which I assume means you could apply such changes to your version as you consider to be improvements. Exactly what extensibility should be and will be provided under various implementations of <video> in various browsers, and at what level (e.g. at the browser, framework, or codec level) remains to be seen, of course. In the meantime, please see what the support does and what it teaches us; it's important to get usage experience. -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 14:56:12 UTC