Comments on: Firefox 3.1 to support HTML 5 video and audio

By: nottRobin

nottRobin — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:00:02 +0000

@diazamet:

You wrote:
“Microsoft and Apple are more than welcome to implement this feature but they are too busy trying to lock you into their respective platforms.”

Actually, Apple (much as I despise them in every other context) were one of the evangelists of HTML5 and the first to support the audio and video tags:

http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple-introduces-Safari-31-with-some-HTML-5-support/1205855382

By: nottRobin

nottRobin — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:53:37 +0000

@HostingITrust:

HTML 5, and therefore the tag, are standards of the W3C standards body (http://www.w3.org/TR/html5), and since it’s a joint effort between Opera, Apple, Mozilla, WHATWG and W3C I can guarantee that every major browser apart from IE will be committed to supporting the standards, once they have been finalised.

Now I agree that IE had no trouble completely ignoring standards for years, but the times they are a-changin’. Back then, the ratio of people-who-understand-the-internet to casual users was a ten-millionth of what it is today. Microsoft are no longer the omnipotent giant they once were, and they know it – if they don’t watch their step they’ll wither away altogether within the next decade.

So. The audio and video tags *will* be supported. You mark my words.

By: diazamet

diazamet — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:57:12 +0000

@HostingITrust:

The whole point in this is so every brower can support a certain format. The web should be platform agnostic. The OGG format is free (gratis and libre), there are no patents or licensing issues for developers to worry about.

‘It is no good just making a website for Firefox’, this is not the case, it’s just that Firefox implemented the feature first. Microsoft and Apple are more than welcome to implement this feature but they are too busy trying to lock you into their respective platforms. Besides, how many times have there been sites that only work with IE because they have been coded to Microsoft’s f**ked up of the standards?

By: HostingITrust

HostingITrust — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:03:55 +0000

It is no good if one browser decides to support a certain format. It has to be accepted by the browser community so that it is implemented across all browsers uniformly. It is no good just making a website for Firefox.

By: randomrandom

randomrandom — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:21:25 +0000

“seeked”? Is this the new “referer”?

By: kyriakos

kyriakos — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:16:47 +0000

@ThomasHansen.. well.. supporting standards for all these years has indeed made IE standards compliant. (sarcasm included) :)

By: ck2

ck2 — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:01:52 +0000

Kinda nervous they are trying to throw the kitchen sink in there.

How about they just fix all the little broken things first like full support for HttpOnly cookies and newlines inside of title text?

By: ThomasHansen

ThomasHansen — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:55:07 +0000

@kyriakos
Well, the solution is pretty easy, support the std (ogg) and don’t give a damn…
If enough people did that IE *would* come around, it’s called “consumer power” and it wouldn’t really take that many sites before they would be forced to do it…
And if YouTube did this… ;)
(Hint, hint…! Consider this a *really* great strategic advice G ;)

By: kyriakos

kyriakos — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:54:33 +0000

as much as i like the idea of and .. thats how much i am not looking forward at them cause they’re a way to more browser incompatibilities. i dont ever expect IE to support OGG, or Safari to support windows media. In the end the burden will fall on the website developers who will have to cater for multiple codecs.