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

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

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:17:32 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830706241517m16ffefd2v581759a1acbe6123@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/25/07, Spartanicus <mk98762 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally I detest Java (resource hog, slow as wading through molasses)
> and don't have it installed, so forgive my potential ignorance.

Don't we all hate java? ;-)

> 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?

No need to encode as a java applet - all you need to do is put the
java applet on the server together with your Ogg Theora content. And -
by all means - this is not supposed to be an end solution, but just a
fix to bridge the gap until all Browsers support the baseline codec.
The native support would always be preferential to any other fix.

> And didn't MS stop including their "Java" in
> recent OSs after they lost the court case with Sun?

I don't know enough about this subject, but I believe that you always
had to install a java VM to get java support in browsers (as you do
with flash). Wasn't the problem with MS and Java rather one of lack of
interoperability and standards conformance?

I am well aware that the Java solution is not perfect and native
support is heaps better. Therefore the need for the <video> element
and for an interoperable version with a common baseline codec.

Regards,
Silvia.
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 15:17:32 UTC

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