Coffeehouse Thread

60 posts

HTML 5 ditches native video support

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    RamblingGeek​UK

    Sad Linky

     

  • User profile image
    TommyCarlier

    Native video support is not ditched. The only thing that's dropped is the required codecs. The <audio> and <video> tags will still be part of the standard but the required codecs that browsers will have to support are not defined (just like with the <img> tag).

  • User profile image
    RamblingGeek​UK

    TommyCarlier said:

    Native video support is not ditched. The only thing that's dropped is the required codecs. The <audio> and <video> tags will still be part of the standard but the required codecs that browsers will have to support are not defined (just like with the <img> tag).

    Ah I see. Misleading header then....

  • User profile image
    peterwillcn

    <ms-video>   wm*  </ms-video>   microsoft     wm*    ie9      Standard

     

  • User profile image
    stevo_

    TommyCarlier said:

    Native video support is not ditched. The only thing that's dropped is the required codecs. The <audio> and <video> tags will still be part of the standard but the required codecs that browsers will have to support are not defined (just like with the <img> tag).

    Makes me wonder if its basically the same thing, unless adoption causes others to bow in its not really going to be a replacement for flash video when you can't serve the same video to 'everyone'.

    I wonder if it is even possible to check for actual support of a codec without browser sniffing and mapping browser versions to 'isSupported'..

    I think its a bit of a blow..

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    stevo_ said:
    TommyCarlier said:
    *snip*

    Makes me wonder if its basically the same thing, unless adoption causes others to bow in its not really going to be a replacement for flash video when you can't serve the same video to 'everyone'.

    I wonder if it is even possible to check for actual support of a codec without browser sniffing and mapping browser versions to 'isSupported'..

    I think its a bit of a blow..

    You don't need to check for support yourself--  the video tag allows you to specify multiple sources, and the browser picks whichever one it supports.  So, right now you just encode in both OGG and H.264, embed them both, and your video will work in all browsers supporting the video tag.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    stevo_ said:
    *snip*

    You don't need to check for support yourself--  the video tag allows you to specify multiple sources, and the browser picks whichever one it supports.  So, right now you just encode in both OGG and H.264, embed them both, and your video will work in all browsers supporting the video tag.

    What happens if the browser supports both?

  • User profile image
    LeoDavidson

    stevo_ said:
    TommyCarlier said:
    *snip*

    Makes me wonder if its basically the same thing, unless adoption causes others to bow in its not really going to be a replacement for flash video when you can't serve the same video to 'everyone'.

    I wonder if it is even possible to check for actual support of a codec without browser sniffing and mapping browser versions to 'isSupported'..

    I think its a bit of a blow..

    You don't need to check for codec support. You can specify a list of video files in different formats and the browser is supposed to pick the first one it can play:

    <video width="640" height="480" controls="controls">
        <source src="__MY_VIDEO__.ogv" type="video/ogg" /><!-- Firefox native OGG video -->
        <source src="__MY_VIDEO__.mp4" type="video/mp4" /><!-- Safari video -->
    </video>

    (That's part of the "Video for Everyone" template.)

    You can also specify a codec in addition to the container, which should remove some of the guesswork (or requirement to download file headers) that the browser would have to do to work out if it can play the codec used in the container (and the bitrate, etc.):

    <source src='video.mp4' type='video/mp4; codecs="avc1.42E01E, mp4a.40.2"'>

    (That example is from 4.8.9 The source element in the working draft. Not sure if that's the latest version; just what I found via Google.)

  • User profile image
    LeoDavidson

    blowdart said:
    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    *snip*

    What happens if the browser supports both?

    It picks one and plays that, but not both. Not sure what the rules are (e.g. if it has to pick the first one or can choose on the one it thinks is best, e.g. I'd want a Windows web browser to avoid QuickTime at all costs and favour formatting my HDD over loading that filth!)

  • User profile image
    Bass

    TommyCarlier said:

    Native video support is not ditched. The only thing that's dropped is the required codecs. The <audio> and <video> tags will still be part of the standard but the required codecs that browsers will have to support are not defined (just like with the <img> tag).

    Well at least with IMG you can pick JPEG and expect it to work reasonably well between all browsers. Smiley I think Ogg Theora should be at least a baseline codec. Basically Apple derailed HTML video in a way by refusing to implement Theora. Sad

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Bass said:
    TommyCarlier said:
    *snip*

    Well at least with IMG you can pick JPEG and expect it to work reasonably well between all browsers. Smiley I think Ogg Theora should be at least a baseline codec. Basically Apple derailed HTML video in a way by refusing to implement Theora. Sad

    Arguably Mozilla derailed HTML video by refusing to implement H.264.

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    AndyC said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    Arguably Mozilla derailed HTML video by refusing to implement H.264.

    Except that Mozilla can't implement H.264, as patent restrictions would prevent the codec from being open source.  Apple could have implemented Ogg Theora--  it's not patent-encumbered and the reference codec is freely available (under a BSD license).

  • User profile image
    giovanni

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    AndyC said:
    *snip*

    Except that Mozilla can't implement H.264, as patent restrictions would prevent the codec from being open source.  Apple could have implemented Ogg Theora--  it's not patent-encumbered and the reference codec is freely available (under a BSD license).

    Just a question, is the video tag really important then if you are not sure the browser will be able to read it correctly (assuming you are not going to have the video in all possible formats)?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    AndyC said:
    *snip*

    Except that Mozilla can't implement H.264, as patent restrictions would prevent the codec from being open source.  Apple could have implemented Ogg Theora--  it's not patent-encumbered and the reference codec is freely available (under a BSD license).

    Apple's excuse is it fears submarine patents for Ogg Theora.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    giovanni said:
    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    *snip*

    Just a question, is the video tag really important then if you are not sure the browser will be able to read it correctly (assuming you are not going to have the video in all possible formats)?

    Good question....  and if i follow this right it means that the video tag / audio tag will be used only here and there by a few and then fade to nothing in use by most developers.

    this kind of crud is one of the reasons we have such hassles with multiple browsers today... the html "standard" each time has left things open to the implimentor to decide, some of them have been small things that lead to major issues down the road...

    like how tall some things get rendered etc... I do not have the details at hand but a bet W3bbo can give a ref to some of that... ??

    so if the html 5 says fuzzy things and the devs and site owners do not want to have to store / recode media like 3 times per item then they will use an object tag that they know how to handle like flash or silverlight or windows media or quicktime.

    oh well again this is why i get sick of the state of html and such.... non-standard standards that do not specify a standard.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    AndyC said:
    *snip*

    Except that Mozilla can't implement H.264, as patent restrictions would prevent the codec from being open source.  Apple could have implemented Ogg Theora--  it's not patent-encumbered and the reference codec is freely available (under a BSD license).

    Interesting use of the word can't when the truth is more like won't. Whilst there were technical objections to Theora, the arguments againt H.264 are purely ideological. Should we really be allowing standards to be defined by the political ideologies of a single contributor? What happens when the FSF push the boundaries further (we've already seen the desire to enforce political views through GPL3), will we continue to blindy accept those into the standards?

    To take it to an extreme, what happens when the Scientologists/Catholics/Muslims/Pastafarians release a browser and start demanding that their beliefs need to be represented by the HTML spec (will all HTML6 documents need to contain a <JesusApproves/> tag?)

    Perhaps I should have said "Arguably, Open Source derailed HTML video"

  • User profile image
    Bass

    AndyC said:
    CannotResolveSymbol said:
    *snip*

    Interesting use of the word can't when the truth is more like won't. Whilst there were technical objections to Theora, the arguments againt H.264 are purely ideological. Should we really be allowing standards to be defined by the political ideologies of a single contributor? What happens when the FSF push the boundaries further (we've already seen the desire to enforce political views through GPL3), will we continue to blindy accept those into the standards?

    To take it to an extreme, what happens when the Scientologists/Catholics/Muslims/Pastafarians release a browser and start demanding that their beliefs need to be represented by the HTML spec (will all HTML6 documents need to contain a <JesusApproves/> tag?)

    Perhaps I should have said "Arguably, Open Source derailed HTML video"

    Mozilla doesn't own the full copyright to the Firefox codebase. They must follow the license like anyone else, or risk being sued for copyright infringement.

    Besides the objections to H.264 are not purely ideological. For a web browser licensing H.264 goes up to five million dollars PER year. It's a very expensive codec.

    Edit: Off by a multiple. Still frecken expensive. Smiley

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Bass said:
    AndyC said:
    *snip*

    Mozilla doesn't own the full copyright to the Firefox codebase. They must follow the license like anyone else, or risk being sued for copyright infringement.

    Besides the objections to H.264 are not purely ideological. For a web browser licensing H.264 goes up to five million dollars PER year. It's a very expensive codec.

    Edit: Off by a multiple. Still frecken expensive. Smiley

    Is it the job of the standards definition body to bail out an organization which made a bad decision in terms of IP ownership? Will it continue to be if they continue to do so? What about if the political hole they are digging themselves becomes fundamentally incompatible with the business requirements of others?

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.