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

[whatwg] <video> element proposal

From: Shadow2531 <shadow2531@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 09:03:29 -0500
Message-ID: <6b9c91b20703030603n2665e636i5f2023ecaada22d5@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/3/07, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On 1 Mar 2007, at 05:27, Shadow2531 wrote:
>
> > On 2/28/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> Why limit yourself to one format?

So there's only one format to worry about implementing. So everyone
using the element would be using the same format.

However, as you said, there'll be better formats in the future, which
is why I asked if it'd be better to require a base format be supported
and then the vendor could support extra ones.

However, the base format might be worthless in the future and it might
be a burden to *have* to support it.

With that said, if:

1. The spec makes no requirement on the format.
2. Vendors (at least the ones interested) agree to make their video
element support one or more of the same base formats.
3. <video src="base format"></video> is used as an example in the
video element description in the spec (to suggest a format, kind of
like the audio object suggests .wav)

, what features do you want from the video element? loop, autostart,
setPosition(), events, volume etc.?

-- 
burnout426
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2007 06:03:29 UTC

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