- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:28:33 -0800
At 16:06 -0800 29/01/08, Charles wrote: >James, > >> Since browsers are free to implement native <video> support with a >> pluggable backend... > >I understand, but something makes me think that this problem won't get >solved when developers are just free to solve it. (This isn't a criticism >of browser developers, BTW. There's no incentive to fix anything but the >formats they care about.) > >Just to focus on one popular way of putting video on the web, Apple won't be >supporting Flash video* and Adobe won't again package Flash as a QuickTime >media type. > >> Are you looking for a way for plugins, rather than the browser >> itself, to handle <video>? > >Yes, with the brower handling handles precendence and event routing, etc. But that's roughly what the cascading source elements do. say you have 85% of your hits from two browser vendors, A and B, each of whom has a specific optional format they support that you think is better than the mandated one. You write <video...> <source vendorA...> <source vendorB...> <source mandatedDefault...> </video> and the rest of your page gets a uniform interface no matter what browser is in effect. Indeed, if you later decide to support vendorC's format, you can insert that without changing anything else -- the rest of the HTML, the scripts, event handling, nothing. Seems like a big advantage to me. And if the mandated format is good enough, you have (we intend) 100% coverage from that, also. You get real integration with the rest of HTML and CSS etc. These all seem like pretty strong advantages to me. And, in addition, nothing stops a vendor from having plug-ins at the browser, framework, or codec level, to offer further flexibility. What am I missing that you don't like? -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 16:28:33 UTC