- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:26:45 +0200
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:39:46 +0200, Andrew Scherkus <scherkus at google.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009, Philip J?genstedt wrote: >> > >> > Not that I except this discussion to go anywhere, but out of >> curiosity I >> > checked how Firefox/Safari/Chrome actually implement canPlayType: >> > >> > http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Video_type_parameters#Browser_Support >> > >> > Firefox is conservative and honest (except maybe for "audio/wav; >> > codecs=0", what could you do with the RIFF DATA chunk?) Safari gets >> > maybe/probably backwards compared to what the spec suggests. Chrome >> > seems to ignore the codecs parameter, claiming "probably" even for >> bogus >> > codecs. Authors obviously can't trust the distinction between "maybe" >> > and "probably" to any extent. >> >> That certainly is unfortunate. > > > Thanks for calling us out :) > > We've addressed this in our latest builds. We now fall somewhere between > Firefox and Safari in terms of conservativeness and honesty. > > We still give bogus codecs a "maybe" if the container is supported, since > that seems to be what the spec suggests. That doesn't match my reading of the spec... The spec says "The canPlayType(type) method must return the empty string if type is a type that the user agent knows it cannot render;" and "A type that the user agent knows it cannot render is one that describes a resource that the user agent definitely does not support, for example because it doesn't recognize the container type, or it doesn't support the listed codecs." > A "probably" is only for both a > container and codec match. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 01:26:45 UTC