- From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 19:15:17 -0800
On 29/01/2008, at 6:17 PM, Charles wrote: > Maciej, > >> But I think the premise of the question misses the point of the >> <video> element. > > I may very well be completely missing the point. > > I'll be satisfied if someone tells me that <video> is not intended > to be the > preferred way to embed video on web pages, in which case I'll > quietly return > to my corner. It is the preferred way to embed *video* not a video player, just pure unadorned video -- there is no direct interface to the underlying implementation. You appear to be having difficulty distinguishing QuickTime the plugin, from QuickTime the framework -- On MacOS quicktime is the standard system framework that applications use for decoding video -- it is equivalent (in this sense) to gstreamer in gtk, etc. <video> is *not* an <object> replacement -- its sole purpose is to provide support for video content that is native to html, and through player can be implemented and controlled through JS and CSS. > >> People now commonly use Flash to write video players because the >> old-school way of embedding video [...] was not capable or >> consistent enough. > > There are lots of reasons that people use Flash, but it's no easier or > harder to embed than any other player/runtime. > >> It is designed to embed video, not video players implemented in >> other technologies. > > But in Safari, <video> = QuickTime. Is that not a player-centric > rather > than a content-centric design? Once again, <video> is a html-native mechanism for supporting video media, not a plugin interface there is no sense in having other runtimes present in it as that would defy the whole idea of being *native* --Oliver > > -- Charles > >
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 19:15:17 UTC