Questioning Mozilla's Plans For HTML5 Video 242
AberBeta writes with this excerpt from OSNews:
"We're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web. Right now, the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash, a closed-source technology. The answer to this is the HTML5 video tag, which allows you to embed video into HTML pages without the use of Flash or any other non-HTML technology; combined with open video codecs, this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web. Sadly, not even Mozilla itself really seems to understand what it is supposed to do with the video tag, and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it. Kroc Camen, OSNews editor, is very involved in making/keeping the web open, and has written an open letter to Mozilla in which he urges them not to use JavaScript for HTML video."
Eyes wide shut (Score:2, Insightful)
The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behavior, the browser was still called Netscape and the tag was universally reviled. I hope they don't blink again.
But that said, does anyone really think video is a good idea? It's hard enough to get users to install the correct codecs to play back movies now. At least with FLV you've got a pretty standard platform which almost everyone already has installed. Adobe, for all their fuckups, has done a good job with Flash. Quicktim
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The patent in question: 5,838,906, "Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document"
Given the HTML5 video tag - in theory - puts an end to the whole concept of browser's needing to invoke outside (plug-in) help to play video, it would seem that the Eolas patent is not relevant here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:5, Informative)
So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs?
No. The idea is to include the codec in the browser. But to allow that at reasonable conditions, the codec should be Free. The codec proposed for this purpose is Ogg Theora/Vorbis, an OSS codec build specifically trying not to use any patented technology. As you can imagine, Apple, MS and Adobe are not really happy about this, as they obviously would like their patented technology to be used in HTML 5, and because Apple and MS are not only video-codec-makers but browser-makers too, and not small ones, we can not just ignore them and go ahead with Theora. Implement the HTML 5 video tag in Mozilla with Theora looked like a good chance to get the open codec though, but this Javascript stuff post by Mozilla now makes it look like they have other plans.
The key is Google/Youtube (Score:2, Interesting)
If we can get Google to go along with Theora, we'd be all set.
Youtube is the only reason I have Flash. I avoid "Porntube" type sites because of the security vulnerabilities found in Flash.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If we can get Google to go along with Theora, we'd be all set.
Google is going along with Theora. Chrome will (does in test builds) support Theora+Vorbis in Ogg.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Check out http://youtube.com/html5
I'm pretty sure that's vorbis/theora.
Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bullshit assumption. I watch streaming video on my TV from sites like Hulu and YouTube, and the higher quality video, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bullshit assumption. I watch streaming video on my TV from sites like Hulu and YouTube, and the higher quality video, the better.
Yes. You are part of a small but growing minority but even so I expect that Theora+Vorbis high-def content at comparable to H264+AAC bitrates would be satisfactory. Check for yourself here [xiph.org] if you've got a Firefox 3.5 pre-release.
For the overwhelming majority of Web video, and for the overwhelming majority of Web users, though, Theora+Vorbis won't just be satisfactory, but will be virtually indistinguishable [xiph.org] from what users are already quite comfortable with.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Theora is close to H.264 or even VC-1, I don't think it's acceptable. I don't want to use mediocre technlogy just because it is open source and patent-unencumbered.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The situation you describe isn't what's actually happening. Theora isn't close to H.264.
Bandwidth==cost (Score:2)
It's not just about quality, it's about efficiency.
Assuming a threshold for "good enough" quality and buffering time, a less efficient codec means:
Users need 2x the bandwidth to have adequate buffering time
Bandwidth costs are 2x higher.
So, there can be a real impact in terms of reduced audience and increased costs.
Also, comparing Theora with H.264, I think 2x may actually be understating the diffrence.
I made these samples, comparing to Xiph's examples. As you can see, x264 was able to deliver quite a good
Re:When bandwidth costs more than MPEG royalties (Score:5, Informative)
"Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder."
Except that statement is provably false if by no other facts than that neither Theora nor H264 quality scales linearly with bitrate.
Beyond the obvious fail in your claim, you're also just wrong.
See this comparison [xiph.org] and this comparison [xiph.org] to see how Theora compares to the most popular real-world implementations of H264 on the Web.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Theora even have hardware acceleration for the big three (AMD Intel Nvidia) GPUs yet?
Not yet, but there's no reason that they couldn't or wouldn't if there was good reason (like an increase in the use of Theora on the Web.)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, Theora still needs twice the bitrate as H.264 to deliver the same quality, even with the "Thusnelda" rewrite of the encoder.
That's not my experience. See here [xiph.org] and here for some real-world comparisons. H264 can be better than Theora -- though not majorly so, but in the real world at sites like YouTube, H264 doesn't stand out from Theora for most cases.
H.264 > H.263 (Score:5, Insightful)
Thusnelda is noticeably better than H.263 (which is what YouTube used to use)
Exactly: used to use. Since then, YouTube serves HQ and HD videos in H.264.
Re:H.264 H.263 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Theora is over a decade old; it definately can beat H.264 in software decoding.
But if you didn't see this:
http://cid-bee3c9ac9541c85b.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/.Public/BBB%7C_Compare [live.com]
As for "if it was good enough in the past..." rule, most web video gets reecoded every 18-24 months to take advantage of more efficient codecs to improve qulaity or reduce bitrates. For real businesses counting.
I recommend people don't focus on YouTube too much as an example of the web video industry. It's very much an ano
Windows N versions; Linux other than x86 (Score:2)
Wouldn't the obvious solution be to use the video codecs on each platform. Windows, OS X and Linux all have the codecs available.
Windows XP N and Windows Vista N don't come with codecs. And how are you sure that Linux has all the codecs available even on CPU architectures other than x86, such as those used in PowerPC-based set-top boxes or ARM-based handhelds?
Ubuntu has a really easy to use installer for codecs (which will grab h264 if needed).
But if the operator of a web site resides in the United States, and he recommends the use of software whose use in the United States would infringe a patent, MPEG-LA could make a case against him for contributory patent infringement. As for relevance of the United States in the
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:5, Informative)
Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive (especially given it's pretty crappy quality), surely you've noticed that? Even on modern dual processor machines it can stutter and slow down other processes. If video could settle down like image formats, the web would be a better place for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash Video is unbelievably processor intensive (especially given it's pretty crappy quality), surely you've noticed that?
Yes. Flash, and its implementation of H264 can be very processor intensive. Theora can actually beat H264 in CPU usage under many circumstances.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I download an .flv and play it in mplayer the problems disappear.
Well what I do is start the stream and then pause it. Go to the dir where firefox saves its current streamed content (/tmp) and play the stream in mplayer there. Works perfectly even as the file is streaming . . . no jumps, no jitters, no CPU overload.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what an intuitive and streamlined user experience!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anandtech tested the Zotac Ion [anandtech.com] with a dual core Atom with Win XP. Full screen Hulu videos were unwatchable at 1920 x 1200, even though the Flash code seems to be threaded pretty well. This same machine can handle 1080p Blu ray playback just fine. That's partially due to handling some of the DRM decryption on the GPU, but even if you strip the DRM, playback still has about 10% CPU utilization.
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:5, Informative)
Nope, OS X (10.5) on a dual 2.8Ghz iMac. There's no excuse for Flash video's failures.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, is not need, is already there.
But I like the idea that not loading Abode is good thing one less thing to do. I like the idea that browser will "bring" in the "accepted" codecs, maybe just import some of VLC. This will make installations easier and standardized, versus the load from here, then go here and download some more, and do not forget the PTFs on top of all of this. Last Window box I did - brand new system with system already preloaded [xp sp3], 7 1/2 hours to get it working will all t
Re: (Score:2)
Err, <script>? Still going strong today. Essential, even. Don't pretend this is a revolutionary change when in reality we're taking about an evolutionary tweak.
Re: (Score:2)
What about <img src="animated.gif"> ?
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of the video tag is that it should contain some (as yet undecided thanks to infighting) standard codec, in the same way as an img tag should always contain jpeg, png or gif data, a video tag should always contain xyz, abc or nml data. Exactly what xyz, abc or nml should be is yet to be figured out.
Google and apple would like them to be h264/aac, because everyone uses that already, even more recent people using flash.
Mozilla would like them to be ogg theora/vorbis, because they're open, even though nothing actually supports them.
Neither side can agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Google and apple would like them to be h264/aac, because everyone uses that already, even more recent people using flash. Mozilla would like them to be ogg theora/vorbis, because they're open, even though nothing actually supports them.
Google Chrome supports OGG out of the box, as well as H.264. I don't think it's correct to cast them as opponents of OGG.
Re: (Score:2)
Google have published articles stating that they could not use ogg for YouTube because it would double their bandwidth costs to maintain the quality they get from h264. They want the standard to include h264 video.
What I did miss out is ofc that MS would love it to include VC/1, but I think we're reasonably safe that no one will chose that option.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fair to me that if one such 'discovery' would benefit the 'sciences and useful arts' (or society as a whole) in a much more dramatic way by being 'opened' af
Re: (Score:2)
The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behavior, the browser was still called Netscape and the tag was universally reviled.
Um. Wrong. That wasn't Mozilla (the organization) that added that. That was Netscape (both the organization and the product).
So are we going to require browsers to install with codec packs?
No. Ideally the major browser vendors will all ship baseline codecs -- hopefully Theora+Vorbis in Ogg. Some vendors will (also) ship H.264+AAC in mp4.
I'm tempted to let it alone.
I'm sure you're not alone. If you're a content producer or a content distributor, I hope you'll change your mind when you see video as a first-class citizen on the Web rather than an afterthought trapped inside of plug-ins.
So, is it really theora only? (Score:2)
When I decided to try video element with Safari 4, it failed miserably because I forgot to install Xiph plugins this time. It is what the ordinary user will live and trust me, they would have no clue/care what Xiph plugins are. I really don't know about Windows land although I believe there must be some windows media framework codecs like quicktime one.
The reason of rejection of Quicktime, Real, WMV was basic. They were huge compared to Flash and in case of Windows Media, the vendor company had childish pol
Re: (Score:2)
The last time Mozilla added support for a tag that had some automatic animated behavior, the browser was still called Netscape and the tag was universally reviled. I hope they don't blink again.
The one major downfall of the blink tag was that it did not have support for an interval attribute.
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to Flash, which is pretty much the ultimate untrusted codec? It's a huge binary blob that has had numerous security problems [adobe.com], and which has a huge attack surface. Even ignoring declared vulnerabilities, Flash allows web pages to do things like access the clipboard and bypass XMLHttpRequest same-origin restrictions. In short, installing flash makes a web browser demonstrably less secure.
It's remarkable, then, that an administrator would be comfortable installing this Trojan octopus of a plugin while ignoring a far simpler open source video codec that he can verify and compile himself.
Really, it just shows that people will trust the familiar without seriously questioning it, at least until a crisis shows up.
Re:Eyes wide shut (Score:5, Informative)
Clipboard.getData() [adobe.com].
Only IE, actually.
Flash allows you to request content from sites that would be blocked by XMLHttpRequest. Can you refuse that statement or not?
You inadvertently make a good point. If Linus or RMS had developed flash, its source would have been open sourced, and by now, its capabilities would have been integrated into the browser. We wouldn't talk about what "Flash" can do as distinct from something else, but simply about the abilities of browsers.
That's what the rich media part of HTML5 is all about: doing what Flash can do in a browser.
Re: (Score:2)
So your corporate locked-down machine came with Flash installed on it? Or does someone with an admin password come and install or update it for you as required and permitted by your company's acceptable use policy? If the latter, why not install the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codec mentioned above instead?
Why install Flash and not Theora (Score:2)
So your corporate locked-down machine came with Flash installed on it? Or does someone with an admin password come and install or update it for you as required and permitted by your company's acceptable use policy?
Both.
If the latter, why not install the Ogg Theora/Vorbis codec mentioned above instead?
Because as of June 2009, watching Theora video is not necessary for doing our jobs. An SWF player, on the other hand, is necessary because some of the manufacturers whose products we resell use SWF for their web sites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you imagine going to a web site from a corporate locked down machine and attempting to install some untrusted codec?
All browsers that support <video> package the codecs they support in the default download. No user downloads are necessary. In the worst case, Flash can still be used as a fallback until all common browsers support <video>. After then, the author will just have to provide video in as many formats as necessary (hopefully, one) to ensure it will play in all browsers.
Sorry, no plug-in for you (Score:3, Informative)
If the tag supports the ability to specify where the codec can be acquired from
The pluginspage attribute of the <embed> element already supports this, as does the classid attribute of the <object> element. But whenever I try to follow the link, all I get is "Sorry, we don't make a plug-in for your combination of CPU, operating system, and web browser."
HTML is dead... Didn't you notice? (Score:2, Interesting)
Our browsers are javascript virtual machines. The web is now being delivered through javascript and not in any meaningful way through HTML.
Re:HTML is dead... Didn't you notice? (Score:5, Informative)
That would be the entire point of HTML 5. To bring HTML back to the forefront.
No it's not; quite the opposite, actually (Score:2)
Try using those HTLM5 features w/o JS:
Unequal standards (Score:2, Informative)
These days, flash is basically a VM for JS plus a bunch of drawing and playback APIs. Why would you demand that firefox does things without JS that flash does with JS? That simply makes no sense.
Video in Firefox works with absolutely zero JS. If you want to create fancy dancing interactive controls, yes you'll need JS, but basic playback doesn't require it... Meanwhile flash needs actionscript3 to do anything at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
HTML is the content, CSS is the way to display the HTML content and Javascript is the way to interact with it all.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
HTML is the content, CSS is the way to display the HTML content and Javascript is the way to interact with it all.
My buzzwordy description for this is Data-Presentation-Mechanics. It's much like the programmer model of Model-View-Controller only applied at a different abstraction level. I believe HTML is near a dead-end now anyways. A proper browser supporting XML (and the related XLink, XForms, etc.) could accomplish anything HTML currently can do, with the added benefit that your (XML) data can speak fo
Re: (Score:2)
Our browsers are javascript virtual machines.
No they aren't, there is no such thing as a javascript virtual machine, the language isn't built that way. What our browsers do is act as a javascript interpreter, which is entirely different. You wouldn't say web browsers are HTML virtual machines, because they aren't. They are HTML interpreters. Javascript is much more closely related to HTML than either of them are to Java. The two have more in common with a language like Python, which is also an interpreted language.
Java is more like a bastardized h
Video tag (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive. I wonder how they'd react if a major online video provider were to provide its content through a less restrictive method such as the video tag.
Re:Video tag (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive. I wonder how they'd react if a major online video provider were to provide its content through a less restrictive method such as the video tag.
I think that's rather simple. The video tag would only be popular with free and amateur content. Flash (or Silverlight) solutions will continue to dominate the more popular commercial comment that needs to be protected. If videos were trapped behind theora playlists with commercials in-between, advocates would make solutions to circumvent the commercials and demonetize the model of the very companies who took the risk to support it.
Basically, any major media company that buys into HTML 5 video tag will be strangled by the advocates who pushed it on them in the first place, monetarily. When the production studios offering the content find out that a free video application that plays their content without commercials (hypothetically) exists, they will pull out and said video site will collapse. Colloquially, it's a trap. Commercial content needs protection because those watching it on the web do not own it.
Furthermore, there will be a minor codec war. Firefox will probably only support theora, Safari will only use h.264 (Apple will flatly refuse to use theora), same for google chrome, perhaps. Then, Microsoft will support the tag in IE, but provide support for WMV in the video tag (and possibly h.264 if we're lucky, since it's now licensed in Windows 7). So, the video tag will slowly become just as crazy as the plugin-based video players of Web 1.0... except they will be written in slow javascript instead of the fast native code of the past. Primarily, because no one has agreed on how to do it so it isn't a standard.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, any major media company that buys into HTML 5 video tag will be strangled by the advocates who pushed it on them in the first place, monetarily. When the production studios offering the content find out that a free video application that plays their content without commercials (hypothetically) exists, they will pull out and said video site will collapse.
Such an app could be written for Flash video too, and probably has been.
Furthermore, there will be a minor codec war. Firefox will probably only support theora, Safari will only use h.264 (Apple will flatly refuse to use theora), same for google chrome, perhaps. Then, Microsoft will support the tag in IE, but provide support for WMV in the video tag (and possibly h.264 if we're lucky, since it's now licensed in Windows 7).
Google already supports Theora and Vorbis in Chrome (as well as H.264). Apple doesn't, but has previously claimed this is because of the risk of getting sued, and that's getting flimsier every day Google doesn't get sued, so we'll have to see how that plays out. God only knows what Microsoft will do; but hopefully the worst will be that you provide one type of content to IE, and one type to everyone else . . . just as with the rest of
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive.
A lot of video producers don't know about FlashGot [flashgot.net].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of video producers like to rely on the fact that Flash makes it difficult to download videos to your hard drive.
They aren't relying on this and if they are, they're just plain silly. You can either grab a Firefox extension to download Flash files or you can just do a Tools->Page Info and Save from the Media tab.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all the time. Try that with Hulu or Megavideo.
There are other add-ons and apps that make downloading Hulu content easy. Try Download Helper for Firefox or some of the for-pay apps.
I thought DRM was the issue (Score:2)
I am unclear on how the video tag is going to make things better. It seems I can already play most codecs in my browser, using, for instance, quicktime. Alternatively I can download the file and play it trough VLC, an open source solution.Of cour
Re:I thought DRM was the issue (Score:4, Interesting)
My understanding is that the reason that people use flash and silverlight for video is so that people cannot save, reuse, and redistribute the content.
I've run across very few streamed videos that can't be downloaded. In the olden days I'd use something like WireShark or Network Monitor to get the URL of the content. Nowadays it's much easier with various Firefox extensions.
As far as I know, the reason most sites use Flash or whatnot is because they want the video to be streamable and start more or less instantly. In modern Western society, if you can't start watching the video immediately, how likely are you going to be to remember to watch it after it's downloaded 15-30 minutes (or more) later? The whole (business) idea is to keep peoples' attention, like with television. If they "switch channels", you've lost your advertising opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that the reason that people use flash and silverlight for video is so that people cannot save, reuse, and redistribute the content.
People use Flash because there's no easier and more widely-supported way to embed video into pages.
Even if these are not used for DRM consideration, flash is often a much smaller file than the other codecs.
Flash is not a codec. <video> can support any codec just as well as Flash can.
I can download the file and play it trough VLC, an open source solution.
People want to embed videos in a page, not just make them available for download. Compare how convenient PDF and HTML are: HTML is right there in your browser, integrated and customizable without having to use another app.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are referring to H.264; in most tests, it is beaten by Theora in bitrate/quality.
What "most tests" are you referring to? The author of the story that you're most likely thinking of [mit.edu] had to publish a correction to clarify that the original results were caused by ffmpeg defects that favored one codec over the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Here are the only two real-world comparisons I know of. Both have Theora making a pretty good showing. Beating H264 in all cases? Not at all. Good enough to replace H263 and H264 at YouTube, absolutely.
http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html [xiph.org]
http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/ [xiph.org]
Which specific search result are you looking at? (Score:2)
Google search for various Theora vs H.264 comparisons.
Because you provide no URLs, I'll assume that you mean the top ten Google results from http://www.google.com/search?q=various+Theora+vs+H.264+comparisons [google.com], as viewed in the United States. One of the results [mozillazine.org] states: "the Theora version doesn't have quite the color saturation and contrast balance of the H.264 version but they're really not that far apart. Overall, I think I again prefer the H.264 version". Another [reddit.com] implies that Theora doesn't scale to high resolutions: "Theora does have a major weakness with re
Re: (Score:2)
One of the results [mozillazine.org] states: "the Theora version doesn't have quite the color saturation and contrast balance of the H.264 version but they're really not that far apart. Overall, I think I again prefer the H.264 version".
Actually, that's not "one of the results." That's a blog post I made where I offered my personal opinion after viewing the comparison tests. If you're going to quote my, please be a bit more honest about it. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, it looks like the #3 result on the google search to me, and the quote looks like a direct quote from the blog.
Also, through the entire blog you say h.264 is superior to theora after performing your own subjective tests.
I'm not sure what is dishonest about the quote. It's a completely accurate and relevant statement, since the GP was not referencing any specific test and only said "most tests", your own non-scientific test is probably exactly the type of test the GP was talking about. The GP also
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Flash use use On2 VP7 as its codec?
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody help me on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Some random Mozilla Hacks (note the word Hacks) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video (which does not use javascript, contrary to the implications in this article and summary?) and also provide a fallback path for non-HTML5 Video browsers (IE, Opera, etc). Their particular method of providing the fallback code uses javascript to determine browser capability, and uses Flash if HTML5 Video is not there.
Why is this upsetting to anyone? The implication from the summary is this is a less "open" way to do it, but last I checked Javascript/ECMAScript is a standard that all browsers implement already.
I cannot fathom why anyone would be so upset by some blogger providing JS-implemented video fallback implementations.
RTFA (Score:2)
Good news, someone wrote up a letter pointing out the drawbacks [camendesign.com]... it's the last link in the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand why they don't agree with the practice, but this is hardly front-page Slashdot news. The summary is, if anything, very misleading. This has NOTHING to do with Mozilla's plans for HTML5 or web openness, it's everything to do with some nameless blogger disagreeing with another nameless blogger's implementation of video fallback.
This is non-news, to say the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Some random Mozilla Hacks (note the word Hacks) blogger posts some code that web developers can use to implement HTML5 video (which does not use javascript, contrary to the implications in this article and summary?)
HTML5 video does provide a rich JavaScript API [w3.org] to allow programmatic manipulation of the video by script. This is, in fact, potentially a great advantage it has over Flash and other solutions. So it can use JavaScript, although it doesn't require it for basic functionality (e.g., "when the page loads, download and display a video with controls to allow the user to play and pause it").
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this even happening? Surely video should never show it's innerHTML unless the tag isn't understood? Just like Iframe, just like Object, just like Embed, etc.
This is exactly correct. The HTML 5 standard specifies [w3.org] that "Content may be provided inside the video element. User agents should not show this content to the user; it is intended for older Web browsers which do not support video, so that legacy video plugins can be tried, or to show text to the users of these older browser informing them of how to access the video contents." JavaScript is therefore not theoretically necessary for fallback to work.
However, if the browser supports <video> but not the
Plugins are Still the Answer (Score:2, Insightful)
The video tag should be run by plugins, they would need to conform to a single standard interface. PLay/Stop/Pause/etc. The key would be having two mechanisms for display, a method which returns a pixmap (so that it would work with X Forwarding) and a version that was accelerated.
the PLay/Stop/Pause interface would be entirely part of the DOM.
Re: (Score:2)
The video tag should be run by plugins,
The whole point of the video tag is that it is an HTML tag and not a plug-in solution. The plug-in solutions already exist today and web developers and browser vendors think that's sub-optimal.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
That is ignoring the basic problem though. There are many video formats. Does it make any sense that the browser only supports a single one as firefox 3.5 is doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Every other format can work as a separate codec, but only one is needed as a baseline.
Re: (Score:2)
That is ignoring the basic problem though. There are many video formats. Does it make any sense that the browser only supports a single one as firefox 3.5 is doing?
Firefox currently only supports one video decoder, Theora, and one audio decoder, Vorbis, but there's no reason it won't include additional decoders. Dirac is being talked about and there are others. Think about images on the Web. There are jpegs, gifs, and pngs. Gifs are going away and we're basically seeing jpegs and pngs. There are many image formats. Does it make sense that browsers are only focusing on 3?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That is what we have codecs for..
But then who provides implementations of codecs for every combination of CPU, operating system, and browser?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So plugins are always cross-platform now?!
They have to be provided for each platform, or they won't come into wide use.
Re: (Score:2)
So plugins are always cross-platform now?!
They have to be provided for each platform, or they won't come into wide use.
Windows Media Player? Silverlight? QuickTime? If by "each platform" you mean, and the previous poster's "cross-platform" comment means what most people mean when they say cross-platform at slashdot -- Mac, Windows and Linux, then I think you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows Media Player? Silverlight? QuickTime?
Those three didn't catch on nearly to the same extent as FLV. I wonder why.
If by "each platform" you mean, and the previous poster's "cross-platform" comment means what most people mean when they say cross-platform at slashdot -- Mac, Windows and Linux, then I think you're wrong.
Linux != Linux on x86. And Opera for Wii includes Flash 7, which can play at least H.263 on YouTube.
Everyone using Firefox 3.5, see this (Score:3, Informative)
Demo of video and SVG support in Firefox 3.5 [mozilla.com]. That's why video being built-in to HTML5 is important.
Re: (Score:2)
So web developers can cause motion sickness?
Don't get me wrong, that is really impressive, and if it's easy to do, great. But who decided that making a video spin was a good idea?
Is this what you really want? (Score:2, Insightful)
this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardize the web.
Innovation and standards often pull in opposite directions.
There are always cracks in the façade. Opportunities for the entrepreneur. The committee moves too damn slow.
I don't think the geek imagined the web evolving as it has - into communities like MySpace, Twitter, and so on.
It would be easy to imagine Windows media and gaming coalescing around portals like Windows Live! and Steam.
By the time the geek standardizes
Really... (Score:2)
"We're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web. Right now, the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash, a closed-source technology"
What you're saying is HTML is going to add the ability to do what people have been doing for 5 yrs with Flash.
I am sorry if I have serious doubts. I am still waiting for CSS/DOM to be fully and uniformly supported across all browsers. And fear that HTML 5 spec has the potential to become a nightmare if it suffers from a lack of uniformity.
Open Source is
Re:Really... (Score:4, Interesting)
What you're saying is HTML is going to add the ability to do what people have been doing for 5 yrs with Flash.
No, what we're saying is that video is going to become a first-class Web citizen that can interact with the rest of Web content in ways that Web developers want. Flash's video is locked inside the plug-in prison and cannot be well integrated with non-flash (real Web) content. Bringing video (and audio) to HTML means that real Web content like other HTML, JavaScript, SVG, CSS, etc. can interact with video and improve on what people have been doing for 5 years with Flash.
Misinterpretation (Score:4, Interesting)
and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it.
The writer of that linked piece makes it pretty obvious his goal is for the video to work for everyone - and the javascript code is therefore used to basically find a method the current user's browser can support without it being obvious to the user (e.g. not forcing the end user to download the video and view it in a separate player, which the OSNews letter seems to want to push on the user).
In other words, he's thinking about the user's experience first.
The author of the submitted story, on the other hand - as with the one from a few days ago that lamented Chrome's lack of purity regarding HTML5 video support - is more interested in Ogg zealotry. That's fine, if it floats your boat - but let's not dance around and obfuscate this. Make it very clear you want the Ogg format used - and ONLY the Ogg format used. Then the rest of the world (outside of Slashdot) can choose to continue ignoring you, just like it's been doing for the past few years.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the OSNews article does not want people to download the video instead. It merely summaries my letter, which asks that Mozilla do not advocate JavaScript to do video fallbacks, but instead use my code (Video for Everybody) that does the same thing even better and without any JavaScript.
What if I don't want to encode video in proprietary H.264 format? What happens if a browser (I don't know, IE9?) ships with support for <video>, but doesn't support either Theora or H.264, only some third format? Does your solution break in those cases?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Javascript is a cool language. I've written more than a couple of browser extensions and intranet apps with it in my time and I'm one of those people that disables javascript for browsing the public internet. I consider running random 3rd party code to be an outright security hole, some people are willing to sacrifice security for the bells and whistles but only a complete moron disagrees with the premise.
You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue down
Re:Waiting (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with HTML 5 or the video tag. The javascript is used to create a fallback path for users who don't have a particular codec installed. It is not compulsory. Most linux machines install ogg theora with a media player package anyway, it's the rest of the world that need to download it.
<video> support in all browsers is cross-platform (except Chrome, which AFAIK doesn't support audio/video yet except on Windows, but that's an omission they're working on fixing). The browser doesn't have to rely on system libraries for decoding Theora any more than for decoding JPEG. Firefox 3.5 or recent Chrome supports Theora on Windows just as well as Linux. Better in Chrome's case for now, as noted.
If you can't stream, you can't... (Score:2)
You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually.
How do you "download" a live stream of a live event, such as a news conference or a sport competition? And how do you plan to deal with video providers who offer streaming for 0 USD or downloads for 20 USD, and no other video provider offers the title you want? If you switch the browser into "prompt to download", you get the first five seconds.
That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled.
Don't worry; it does.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can probably guess that I personally am going to disable the HTML5 A/V elements and continue downloading video manually. That aside, browser based audio/video should provide basic playback functionality for the user without javascript enabled. The functionality should also be easily disabled or switched into "prompt to download" mode
All of this is already the case. Try out Chrome on Windows, or Firefox 3.5 on (AFAIK) any platform. You don't need JavaScript enabled (unless the page author is a jerk, but that's always true), and you can download from the context menu as you'd expect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Javascript is MISUSED a lot, but hell, so is C.