Comments on: Opera element proposal

By: johnny

johnny — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:03:13 +0000

i really like your blog. how it explains how to use the code simply. but im still a noob in that area , but i do understand it , some what, ;)
good job. i like.

By: afcn007

afcn007 — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:58:47 +0000

That is amazing, we need the video tag, and throra is good, wish to see ie8 support it too. The object and embed is not good for web.

By: music

music — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:33:30 +0000

nice blog , fun stuff

By: wats up

wats up — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:56:18 +0000

sweet blog

By: Oliver

Oliver — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:48:43 +0000

What’s with the strange HTML in that example?
And how about….http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms533100.aspx last time I tried these they worked in FireFox too.

By: Bertrand Le Roy

Bertrand Le Roy — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:43:54 +0000

Well, Dave, wouldn’t choice be the most open? Supporting Ogg is one thing that I’m entirely in favor of, but that shouldn’t be the *only* choice. Realistically, contents providers are going to make or kill the success of such a tag, and you can bet that most of them will want some format that has some DRM (whether you like that or not, which I personally don’t). So if there is a new tag that supports only Theora, well, only Wikipedia will use it, and the rest of the world will continue to use the proprietary plug-ins (some of which have 98% penetration).
Also, I’m not sure how the BSD-style license of Theora plays with the requirements of proprietary browser vendors. Opera seems to be fine with it, but I doubt Microsoft would be ready to integrate it into IE. Just trying to be pragmatic here.

By: Dave L

Dave L — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 17:01:51 +0000

HÃ¥kon Lie presented a demo of this build at the recent Browser Wars panel discussion at Yahoo! (video link). He argued that OGG Theora is not "some arbitrary choice that standards authors settled on" because it is an open source format - it is more open than the current market alternatives.

By: Bertrand Le Roy

Bertrand Le Roy — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 23:43:12 +0000

Most of the discussion seems to be around whether there should be an assumed patent-free codec, whether it should be the only supported thing or just the default. The choice of the codec should not be imposed in my opinion. The market should sort that out. How about just having a type attribute to specify a MIME type that identifies how the video is encoded? That would be a lot simpler than all this negotiation thing that requires a lot of cooperation between the server and client sides. And it would be a lot more open than limiting to some arbitrary choice the standards authors settled on.

By: Steve Boyd

Steve Boyd — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 21:19:59 +0000

Whats wrong with the way it works right now?

By: naterkane

naterkane — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:56:38 +0000

can this same approach be applied to flash as well? and instead of a “video” tag, just call it “media” and then have it apply to video, audio AND flash…..

By: Joseph Annino

Joseph Annino — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:54:32 +0000

There are so many complex details that this gives us a chance to do right or wrong:
- content negotation: select different video based on language, connection speed, and codecs supported by the browser. The spec should define some manditory codecs.
- javascript integration: this is going to need a really robust javascript object for sending play, pause, fast forward, rewind, volums, and scrub commands, and firing events related to these things as well.
- skinning and layering: video should be able to support transparency and overlays both above and below

The flash video playback system just works. Its what has really enabled sites like YouTube. No confusing choices of players, etc, and te ability to completely control the playback experience. The video tag would help bring that sort of ability to AJAX apps if done right. Although if I were to implement such an app today, I’d have a small flash video player and my own set of libraries to communicate with it over javascript.

By: Chad

Chad — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:37:50 +0000

If you’re gonna do it, don’t ignore the content-type, as not every database driven website uses static addresses for videos (i.e. can’t check the extension to see if it as flv, avi, mov, rm, etc.

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:32:59 +0000

> When the src=â€” attribute is set, the user agent must
> immediately begin to download the specified resource

That is sooo wrong. Also binding codec support to the browsers developers’ mercy? Opera often comes up with nice ideas. This is not one of them.

By: warp.

warp. — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:35:31 +0000

totally agree with Oskar

plus, should that be limited to non-interactive (linear) video? for what purpose?

By: Oskar Krawczyk

Oskar Krawczyk — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:26:14 +0000

That doesn’t make any sense. We WANT to get rid of any img/video tags for the use of object tag – that what was said form the beginning of xhtml standard…

By: Kjell Bublitz

Kjell Bublitz — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 12:12:06 +0000

Watching Videos on a HTML website is not that common, even if some partys might want it to be. Videos and HTML are too different.

Embed is fine and makes much more sense here.. (we embed something in a page that usually does not belong there). That theres a little fuzz about object/embed since IE vs NS, is another story.. even tho there is still no allround solution, this proposal goes into the wrong direction.

When i read something like “the user agent should start decoding the video” i get a bad feeling about it already.. A user agent should never decode videos nor mp3s.. it’s a browser, not iTunes. Thats why there a plugins.

By: Gonzalo

Gonzalo — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:36:27 +0000

Ready to get rid of generic ugly object/embed tags?

Ready to have a growing number of pretty and specific but different (audio, video, applet, flash, vrml, panorama, myOwnObject, mineToo, etc) tags? Mmm…

By: moisadoru

moisadoru — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 11:05:19 +0000

how about an info() method ?