W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2008

[whatwg] Some <video> questions

From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:23:00 -0800
Message-ID: <32ABA2A9-8DEC-4F03-916F-C8F6490B2A85@apple.com>

On 30/01/2008, at 12:54 PM, Charles wrote:

> Thanks for the conversation, folks!
>
> I was hoping that <video> would make Objecty <http://wiltgen.net/ 
> objecty/> redundant by making it easy for authors to embed video in  
> a very simple, normalized fashion across formats, browsers and  
> OSs.  Now I understand that <video> will be considered successful  
> without having fixed video embeddeding in general, which is fine.
What part of video does it not fix?  It defines a standard API for  
all implementers, with standard html-native markup.

Afaict you just want to be able to replace your use of <object> with  
<video> which is entirely pointless, the purpose of the video tag is  
to provide a standardised native html element, not another plugin  
mechanism to replace <object> -- by definition a plugin is both non- 
native and non-standard so has no relevance here.

Once the spec is complete you'll be able to use standard html to say  
here is a video, then use JS to bind custom controls (if you so  
desire), and everything will be wholesome and good.  If you want to  
use a plugin use <object> that's what <object> is for.

--Oliver

>
>> Microsoft provides a QuickTime component for Windows Media; would
>> that not be sufficient?
>
> Unfortunately not.  There's the installed base problem we've talked  
> about a lot in the thread, plus Flip4Mac WM doesn't support all  
> Windows Media features.  Really, it was always just a stop-gap  
> until Silverlight.
>
> -- Charles
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2008 13:23:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:00 UTC