May28th2018 said:
figuerres said:
*snip*

I'm not going to argue, but consider that your graph is using data that is over a year and a half old while the one I posted is current.

"Video is so fragmented each browser needs a different codec"

http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#attr-source-type

Mozilla and Google have agreed on default support for ogg. I don't believe that the video DOM object has a tag for changing the encoding type, only a canPlay filter for js and a source type filter.

"so video will remain served by Flash"

Flash only plays flv encoded video and audio frames.

The W3C has given up trying to get them to agree.

Apple refuse to implement Ogg and went with H.264. Opera refuse to use H.264 because of the licensing costs. Google use H.264 and Ogg but can't redistribute H.264 in an open source way and say Ogg just isn't ready for sites like YouTube. Mozilla refuses H.264 because of patent problems.

So you have two browsers not supporting the prefered format for the web's main video site YouTube. And there's no way to nominate a codec in the spec. So how exactly is this going to work?

(And again users don't care what format their video is in as long as it gets shown. And Flash supported H.264 in Flash 9 in December 2007. Flash works right now. Users see the piano playing kitten. That's all they care about)