Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Bass Bass Knows the way the wind is flowing.
  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    No I mean people who use video that way will likely use it poorly from a UI perspective.

    It's so much easier to do it nicely. Video in Firefox displays a nice and usable video player by default. Of course you can code up your own video player (remember the video is controllable using JS/CSS), but most people likely will not.

     

    Here is an example (works on Chrome/Firefox):

    http://videos.mozilla.org/firefox/3.6/meetfirefox/FF3.6_Screencast_FINAL.ogv

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Do you think that would be used well? I don't see it being used often, and when used people will probably screw it up.  I just don't think a video element will change the web in any significant way.

     

     

    There isn't that much to screw up. As so far as embedding a video onto a website, it's about as difficult as embedding an image. Oh wow, so difficult. You can do it with Notepad.

     

    The issue HTML5 video has right now is largely patent/legal war, not a technology war. There might be billions of dollars in stake, so it's pretty fucking hardcore war. If that ever gets sorted out, expect HTML5 video to make an explosion, as Google is highly interested in the technology. Besides YouTube (which has an HTML5 video option), lots of major video sites are experimenting with HTML5 video one way or another.

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    By that standard, text is also an embedded object. 

     

    I'm trying to make a point though about how video is used differently on webpages than images. Images are used for page decoration, so you'll see an image as a logo , as page headers, as menu items, as borders.. You can't take images out of HTML and be graceful about it.

     

    A video element is always a rectangular embedded object with a control container. Its always used as an embedded object, and not just to display the page.

     

    An analogy to images would be a Silverlight photo zoom control, which is also an embedded object with a a control container. It wouldn't be necessary to make photo zoom elements as part of the HTML standard.

    There is no reason a video can't be used as "decoration". GIFs have been doing that for ages (and they are technically video, just a crappy format).

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Nah, images are used for page decoration its a lot harder to get rid of them from HTML gracefully. My point is that videos are always like an embedded object.

    Images are embedded objects too. Some can even display primitive video.

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Video manipulation with javascript won't be that useful though , especially not useful beyond what plugins like flash already allow. I'm not saying its bad to have a video element, I think it might be a good thing in the end... its just that its self-serving for the browser developers and that it doesn't add much needed functionality.

     

    I just think of CSS as a higher priority.

    I suppose we should get read of the <img> element too, since Flash can display images.

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Video manipulation with javascript won't be that useful though , especially not useful beyond what plugins like flash already allow. I'm not saying its bad to have a video element, I think it might be a good thing in the end... its just that its self-serving for the browser developers and that it doesn't add much needed functionality.

     

    I just think of CSS as a higher priority.

    I suppose we should get read of the <img> element too, since Flash can display images.

  • Zune for Mac, YEESSS

    dahat said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    I suspect you missed my key point from above, allow me to copy and paste it for you: 

    Remember what one of the best parts about the Zune software is?

     

    Zune Pass... which is dependent on some form of Windows Media Player DRM... something that does not exist on the Macintosh.

    Should they have used MTP or another common way to sync the device... perhaps.

     

    Maybe you should request a video on that subject.

     

    No matter the answer... that is in the past... what we are talking about is bring the Zune software to the Mac.

     

    Yes... they could go and rev firmware and make it syncable via MTP... but then what? You are automatically cutting off all of those new users that magicalclick wants to bring the goodness of the Zune to... by saying “Sure... you can use Zune Pass... only not on your Mac... unless you dual boot to windows... or on another PC... or just online.”

     

    MTP/MTPZ are trivial compared to bringing the whole WMP DRM thing over... which has been my point form the beginning.

    Yes... they could go and rev firmware and make it syncable via MTP... but then what?

     

    Then Mac and Linux users could use the Zune, something your company obviously doesn't want. And not because they have low marketshare.

     

    It's worth noting the Zune basically implements MTP, it just denies read/write access to all clients who don't know some secret authentication procedure. Again, Zune was explicitly designed to be incompatible. Not the other way around.

     

    http://libmtp.sourceforge.net/device_details.php?id=64

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    It doesn't matter, there's practically no difference between having a browser natively support a video, and a browser running a plugin that supports a video. A video element, no matter what, is basically an embedded object. It will always be a square box in the middle of a page with a set of user controls. Having the element as part of a standard adds zero functionality.

     

    However, having it part of HTML allows people to push an open source video format as the standard and push out proprietary formats like WMV. 

    It doesn't matter, there's practically no difference between having a browser natively support a video, and a browser running a plugin that supports a video. A video element, no matter what, is basically an embedded object. It will always be a square box in the middle of a page with a set of user controls. Having the element as part of a standard adds zero functionality.

     

    A video or audio is a native part of the page just like an image is. It can be manipulated with CSS and JavaScript and is part of the DOM of the page.

     

    However, having it part of HTML allows people to push an open source video format as the standard and push out proprietary formats like WMV.

     

    I don't see how this is a bad thing. The Internet is an international, global thing, not a proprietary thing. Microsoft could open WMV and introduce it as W3C standard. Actually that would be a great thing for the future of the web.

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    brian.shapiro said:
    intelman said:
    *snip*

    Thats all this is really about , Flash, Silverlight, and proprietary video formats. the Video element doesn't really add anything new functionally. Browser devs are being self-serving by focusing on HTML5 before CSS3, because its a way to attack Microsoft.

    It adds video support to the native web. Silverlight/Flash/RealPlayer != native web

     

    None the less HTML5 is more then just video/audio guys. It's a whole new revision of the HTML standard with a bunch of features. Some of which IE8 currently supports right now. Smiley

  • Firefox 3.6 released

    Harlequin said:

    How does <video> work? You need to download the codec or will it be in the abckground?

     

    I still wish they wouldn't push HTML5/CSS3, HTML5 isn't even a recommendation yet I think, not sure about CSS3. Doubt we'll be able to even start using HTML5 fully until 2012 or 2013.

    <video src="path/to/video.ogg"> This is not a new technology to Firefox 3.6 however.

     

    HTML5 was created outside on the W3C, by Google, Mozilla and Apple as part of the WHATWG. IE8 adopted some HTML5 stuff already, giving some HTML5 technologies 100% modern web browser penetration.