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

[whatwg] <video> element proposal

From: Shadow2531 <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 04:46:40 -0500
Message-ID: <6b9c91b20703010146r68644c3dl1c25349d0eb8b696@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/1/07, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au> wrote:
> Shadow2531 wrote:
> > On 2/28/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> >> Opera has some internal expiremental builds with an implementation of a
> >> <video> element. The element exposes a simple API (for the moment) much
> >> like the Audio() object:
> >
> > I think it'd be cool if the video element *just* supported theora.
>
> Mandating support for a single specific video format like Theora would
> be like requiring browsers to only support PNG for images.

As Martin said, Perhaps ogg can be the format required to conform.
Then other types can be supported through whatever means (native or
mapping to a plugin like wmp etc.)

> > If it supports whatever the browser wants to implement, we'd have to
> > do like the following I think.
> >
> > <video src="test.wmv">
> >    <video src="test.mpg">
> >        <video src="test.ogg>
> >            I give up
> >        </video>
> >    </video>
> > </video>
>
> Or simply use
>
> <video src="test"><embed src="test"><!-- fallback --></video>

Yes, that also.

> And use server-side content negotiation to determine the best one to send.
>
> The browser could send along the list of supported MIME types in it's
> accept header for video formats, like:
>
> Accept: application/ogg, video/mpeg, video/mp4, application/mp4,
> video/quicktime, */*;q=0.1

Sounds good.

-- 
burnout426
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 01:46:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:53 UTC