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

"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?


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