- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:34:17 +0700
It seems to me that it's a good idea to wait with this until we know more about what will happen with baseline codecs etc. Implementation-wise it might be less than trivial to return an exhaustive list of all supported mime-types if the underlying framework doesn't use the concept of mime-types, but can say when given a few bytes of the file whether it supports it or not. Allowing JavaScript to second-guess this doesn't seem great On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 12:18 +0200, j at oil21.org wrote: > ?On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 12:03 +0200, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > Why is that needed? The elements provide a way to link to multiple codecs > > of which the user agent will then make a choice. > i do not intend to provide multiple codecs since that would require > multiple backend implementations for playing files form an offset, > encoding files in multiple codecs on the server, more disk space etc, > > instead i would only use the <video> tag if the codec i use is supported > and fall back to other means via <object> / java / flash or whatever to > playback the video or indicate that the user has to install a > qt/dshow/gstreamer plugin. in an ideal world i could use <video> like i > can use <img> now and be done with it, but since this is not the case we > need tools to make the best out of <video>, not knowing what the browser > supports and just hoping that it could work is not an option. > > j > > -- Philip J?genstedt Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 03:34:17 UTC