Actually, HTML 5 does seem pretty cool... | The Coffeehouse

intelman

I came across this article,

http://www.geektechnica.com/2009/10/apple-com-leading-the-way-with-html5-implementation/

Stating that Apple.com has implemented HTML 5. It appears correct. If one goes to www.apple.com in Chrome or Safari, and wants to watch the video on the new iMac, the video just plays with some popup controls.

I absolutely love not having to get another plugin or rely on any plugins that currently exist. Now if only Apple would implement such a thing for their trailers website...http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/

I kinda had my doubts, but this real life implementation seems decent enough to convince me. The picture is clear, playback is smooth and the popup controls are clean.

CKurt
while( ( !succeed=try() ) ) { }

Indeed, if only they would do it for everything. I refuse to install Quicktime!

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

Stating that Apple.com has implemented HTML 5

But there is no HTML5. Not yet. It's only a draft, and the bits of the draft concerning audio and video are messed up due to lots of infighting over codecs.

stevo_
Human after all

In reply to blowdart

#Oct 22nd @ 5:47 AM

Yea but it sounds better than saying.. we implemented use of the new video tag.

I'm planning to use it, considering you really should use javascript to inject flash, you might as well put video tags in and run javascript to replace them with flash in the event video isn't natively supported / codec isn't supported.

spivonious

It would be nice if HTML5 browsers would support any codec in the video tag and simply pass it through to whatever codecs are installed on the user's OS. That way the browser isn't responsible for doing something it wasn't designed for (playing video).

Maddus Mattus
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda

Apple has always been a leading innovator in terms of hardware design and OS improvements

Uhuh, that's why their current OS is based on FreeBSD,..

Larry Osterman

In reply to blowdart

#Oct 22nd @ 5:47 AM

What's worse is that there are major revisions to the draft every week. IMHO right now it's not stable enough for any web developers to use. This might change over the next year or so, but as things stand now, but any "real" sites that start using HTML5 features risk having the features they depend on change without warning.

stevo_
Human after all

In reply to Larry Osterman

#Oct 22nd @ 7:20 AM

To be fair thats highly unlikely right now, web driven specifications only settle down when people start to adopt them.. the video tag has been through enough thought and people are starting to assume its design.. the fact people like apple are using them will be enough for it to be 'proof of concept, thats good enough for us, sign it off'.

If nobody uses something then it tends to constantly change as the world changes, and just naturally in the way you can constantly revise a design to make it better and better.

If there are any great changes now they its highly likely they'll become optional, or part of 'video 2.0' specification.

Bertie

Speaking of HTML 5, guess which company just offered to split out, edit, and maintain a Canvas 2D API specification? (As anyone who has ever watched a W3C or IETF standards process in action would know, getting an Editor with the time and qualifications is usually the #1 barrier to getting stuff done, so comitting to edit something is kind of a big deal).

The Apple rep's response was, uh, not exactly enthusiastic, but that's nothing compared to the drama that'll come out of FOSS-land if their beloved <canvas> or some part of it really does end up being edited by Microsoft employees . That said, since Microsoft's last big idea in HTML 5, Namespaces in HTML, flew like a lead balloon among the Working Group, Microsoft's offer is a long way from coming to anything.

magicalclick

Off topic, but why is the title with all the weird characters?

About video, as a user, I prefer to use Flash or Silverlight now. Why do I have to install all the werid codec for something to work? And from the look of it, the video standards in video support are usually propriritary file format from each company trying to promote their own stuff. The video required doesn't seem to be open standard and I will just be forced to install some werid codec to get the page runing properly. Might as well use some plug-in that already installed like Flash. I don't want more plug-ins.

LeoDavidson

In reply to magicalclick

#Oct 22nd @ 1:11 PM

You don't have to install any codecs AFAIK. The browsers have the decoders built in (if at all) and won't use external codecs (even if you want them to).

Harlequin
http://twitter.com/TrueHarlequin

In reply to LeoDavidson

#Oct 22nd @ 1:29 PM

Do we even know what that means? Do we need to encode our videos 10 times to work on every browsers implementation of the <video> tag>?<video> and <canvas>....2 tags I'll never use...

DCMonkey
Monkey see, monkey do, monkey will destroy you!

In reply to Bertie

#Oct 22nd @ 12:34 PM

Bonus Trivia: Maciej Stachowiak (the unenthusastic Apple guy from your second link), was lead developer on Nautilus, the GNOME File manager, before going to Apple to work on WebKit.

stevo_
Human after all

In reply to Harlequin

#Oct 22nd @ 1:49 PM

There was originally a single codec that all browsers were to support, ogg.. but that didn't work out.. right now you need to provide ogg and mp4.

Not using video or canvas is your loss.. especially considering how important canvas will be.

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

In reply to stevo_

#Oct 22nd @ 2:05 PM

So if better codecs come along they are useless because we can only use ogg and mp4 from now on?

intelman

In reply to Bas

#Oct 22nd @ 4:42 PM

Codecs don't change too often. Even so, it is hard to spread support. Windows just now got support for h.264 and mpeg 4 audio with Windows 7.

I am not too worried about newer codecs, because adoption is too slow anyways.

stevo_
Human after all

In reply to Bas

#Oct 22nd @ 4:42 PM

Like anything, browsers will probably implement new codecs, if its a good move then others will too.. eventually you decide based on your audience.. can I use this feature? ... its the same as any technology, especially web orientated.. thats just the way things work.

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

In reply to stevo_

#Oct 23rd @ 1:12 AM

I though the whole idea was that they only stuck with one or two codecs so that authors don't have to provide their content in a gazillion codecs. Won't implementing new codecs as they come along totally defeat that point?

Awful. Let's just keep using Flash.

stevo_
Human after all

In reply to Bas

#Oct 23rd @ 2:16 AM

How is it any different to flash? today you need latest versions of flash to support newer video codecs..

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

In reply to stevo_

#Oct 23rd @ 2:19 AM

Because it's just flash, not -~-ZOMG ; -) CoDeC by MaStAhAcKa![=~-. I need an update, flash tells me so, I click a button. Also, I don't have to look through some fifteen year old's awesome catalog of open source garbage to find the 15 codecs the video tag wants me to have.

stevo_
Human after all

In reply to Bas

#Oct 23rd @ 3:01 AM

uhmm, I think you are looking at this backwards.. I could try and put 'zomg codec' on my site and play that via flash, flash would simply refuse to play it.. with the video tag, the browser would simply refuse to play it..

thats MY problem, as the site builder.. the video tag works the same way as flash, I really don't understand why its hard to understand because today if you want to play average codec 1.0 you need flash 9, if you want to use codec zomg super amazing brand new codec, you need flash 10..

With the video tag, if you want to play ogg/mp4 you need a video supporting browser.. if in 2 years time exists zomg super amazing brand new codec, you need the latest versions of the browser..

Lets look at the event I want to use zomg super amazing codec with flash, someone hits my site and oops, they don't have flash 10, all I can do is tell them they need to update flash.

In the web scenario I use zomgsuper amazing codec, and the user doesn't have the latest version of their browser, then all I can do is tell them they need to update their browser.

The reality is the same, if you want to use technology x, you need to discover just how many of your audience will have technology x, or more importantly, how many won't have technology x, and in that case, is that a risk I want to take, do I really want to disrupt THAT many users experience with a 'you need to update something', and how many of those will say 'forget it'..

Theres nothing intrinsically faulty with the design of video in this regard, any 'document orientated' technology where you only send the document and expect the client has something installed to understand that document to get a result will always have this flaw.

LeoDavidson

In reply to Bas

#Oct 22nd @ 4:42 PM

There are pros & cons both ways but I think it's probably better for the codecs to be baked into the browser than using external codecs installed on the machine.

Video codecs (and splitters) seem to be the most bug-ridden and inconsistent (between implementations or just versions of the same implementation) software on the planet. Better to have a few known-good implementations, written specifically for the browsers they're used in -- so no worries about code that makes wrong assumptions about the way the host application calls it -- than the alternative, I think.

There's also the security aspect since video codecs often have buffer-overflow bugs and the like.

With the browsers being responsible for their own codecs they can ensure the user keeps them up-to-date with versions that are working, stable and secure. OTOH, a browser that called out to whatever random codecs were on the machine would be hard pressed to know when to inform the user that the weird compile of someone's experimental codec was out of date and a new version should be downloaded from somewhere and installed somehow.

Similarly, if someone non-technical asked me how to play a strange video format, I'd just point them at FLV or GOM since they have their codecs baked-in and more-or-less 'just work' for almost everything. I personally prefer using other things to play video but it's a constant battle where some new video I want to play causes problems and I have to work out what to upgrade/install/regsvr32...

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

I'd rather browser developers focus on CSS3 instead of HTML5.

Bass
www.spreadfirefox.com/5years/

In reply to brian.shapiro

#Oct 23rd @ 8:44 AM

What new stuff that CSS3 bring to the table?

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

In reply to Bass

#Oct 23rd @ 10:14 AM

A lot, from the perspective of a designer. Web fonts (cross-browser), opacity so you can have transparent elements, automatic ellipses to clip text, rounded corners (so you no longer need to use images) and border-images, resizable elements, multiple background images, multiple columns, background clipping, more element selectiors (not, etc)

What does HTML5 bring? A video tag, which just supercedes embedding a video via a plugin.