W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2007

[whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the <video> element

From: Spartanicus <mk98762@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:21:56 +0100
Message-ID: <n2m-g.72us73th84oqcm5bv9okok3k8h37e6fiie@4ax.com>
"Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Imo for content providers to choose <video> over Flash, client support
>> needs to be close to Flash. Requiring IE and Safari users to go and
>> download and install third party software to play content would imo be
>> considered too much of a hindrance when Flash "simply works".
>
>Cortado is a java applet that "simply works" (apart from a few bugs :)
>and provides Ogg Theora support to Web Browsers even now. There is no
>need to install third-party-software, apart from Java.
>
>For Flash video to work, you have to have the Flash plugin installed.
>For Cortado to work, you have to have Java installed. The install-base
>of Flash and Cortado is probably comparable. So, "client support needs
>to be close to Flash" can be fulfilled with a bit of effort.

Personally I detest Java (resource hog, slow as wading through molasses)
and don't have it installed, so forgive my potential ignorance. Why
create an HTML <video> element with the express purpose of supporting
video natively in clients if video needs to be coded as a Java applet
with Java handling it? And didn't MS stop including their "Java" in
recent OSs after they lost the court case with Sun?

-- 
Spartanicus
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 07:21:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:56 UTC