- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 00:55:13 +0100
Also sprach Bjoern Hoehrmann:
> In case of video, there is no need to implement anything using style
> sheets, behaviors, or scripting, you can use it directly, right now,
> it's easy as pie,
>
> <html xmlns:t="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:time">
> <?import namespace="t" implementation="#default#time2">
> <body>
> <t:video src='example.video'></t:video>
> </body>
I can see two problems: the markup and the codecs.
Namespaces are hard and I doubt that any markup that requires using
them will succeed. Also, the vendor-specific string is troublesome for
general use. If we want to make video a first-class citizen on the web
(and I think we do) we can afford to give it its own element in HTML.
The name and attributes can be borrowed from other specs, but the
element itself should be in HTML.
Second, about the codecs. I believe it's vital that we find a video
format that is sufficiently open. It should be described in a freely
available specification and there should be no (known or unresolved)
patent claims. I don't think this is the case for the codecs on the
other side of the t:video element.
-h&kon
H?kon Wium Lie CTO ??e??
howcome at opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2007 16:55:13 UTC