- From: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:02:06 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > Dave Singer wrote: >>> That seems entirely unreasonable to me. In particular, it doesn't >>> let me, as an author, try for a higher-quality codec with fallback to >>> a more commonly supported one. >> >> No, you mis-understand. That case is precisely why multiple source >> elements are allowed. > > Hmm. OK. So I can fall back to a different codec using multiple > <source>s. I can't fall back to a video format that only has plug-in > support, though? You mean something like <video> <source> <source> <object></object> </video> I think that doesn't work as the spec is written at the moment. It seems like it would be useful for transitioning to <video> in a situation where the number of transcodings of the original is smaller than the subset of all browser-supported encodings but an applet/plugin basedlayer for one transcoding is available. One example of this would be wikimedia using <video>+ogg which currently won't work for most people in Safari but will work in Firefox (although as I understand it the wikimedia people actually want a different solution as they think the UI of their plugin is better than the browser native UI or something). -- "Eternity's a terrible thought. I mean, where's it all going to end?" -- Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead
Received on Monday, 25 August 2008 19:02:46 UTC