On Sun, 2009-02-08 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Martin Sourada wrote: > > No, they won't be. They're using whatever framework there is on mac and > > they'll be using whatever framework is default on windows. It's no > > different from video intended from download - you rely on the customer > > to install the needed codecs himself. > > And this in turn will draw webmasters to Flash (or rather fail to draw them > away from it, the web is already infected with it all over the place), > which has a known set of codecs. :-/ > > The whole point of having native video support in HTML is that you don't > have to install stuff, so having some known-supported codec is essential. > Therefore, IMHO it was a big mistake that the clause which made Ogg > Theora/Vorbis support mandatory got removed from HTML 5, and the WebKit > approach is not going to be reliable. > > Using the native multimedia framework does make sense, but at that point the > browser should be responsible for installing the codecs Xiph.org provides, > not the user. > Well your points seems to hit the nail on its head. As you said, it would be actually way better to have a mandatory set (defined by w3c) of supported codecs/formats (be it for example ogg, theora, vorbis and flac) which each browser should support but please does not make it the only codecs/formats supported. On *nix platform the above mentioned set of codecs is usually available form the start and furthermore its installation is usually pretty straightforward, on windows, and maybe mac, it would probably require bundling the set of above mentioned codecs within the browser installer. > Kevin Kofler > Martin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
