8 ms·

Under video "<video> MP4 H.264 playback support, using hardware or software decoding. Support for WebM software is not included in this release." Does that mea

by cracell 16y ago

Under video "<video> MP4 H.264 playback support, using hardware or software decoding. Support for WebM software is not included in this release." Does that mean that IE9 is planning to support WebM? All I can find is mentions that IE9 can use codecs installed on the users computer but I can't find any commitment to WebM being bundled.

kenjackson 16y ago
I believe WebM is not bundled. It will play it if the user has installed it: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow...
chc 16y ago
Microsoft isn't bundling the codec, but they have promised to make IE9 work well with it. Halfhearted support.
- tzs 16y ago
  That's called being technically competent, not being halfhearted. Codecs do not belong in browsers. People want video outside of browsers. Should everything that wants to support video have its own built-in copy of every codec? That's bloated. In addition to bloat, if each thing has its own implementation, there will be subtle (and probably not so subtle) differences in them. It will annoy users if their videos look different depending on whether they are in a browser, or they downloaded the file and are playing it in a media player. If the codec has user-setable options, the user has to set their preferences in multiple places.
  - chc 16y ago
    Oh, I absolutely agree it should be included with the OS itself, but having it just in the browser is better than not having it at all. We need a standard video format that everyone can use. A standard video tag is worthless without one — you'd be better off sticking with Flash video otherwise. WebM has the chance to be that, but not if the user is required to have already installed it himself.
  - Kadin 16y ago
    Gotta disagree with you a bit. Most content that users watch online isn't (easily) downloadable and playable anywhere except in a browser. And even if it was, I'm not sure that anyone except a very small minority of users would ever take advantage of it. To a growing number of users, the OS is just something that you need in order to run a web browser, nothing more. I think it's far more important to ensure that video plays easily and looks consistent across multiple machines, at least when played in the same browser. I can see someone understanding if a video doesn't look the same in Firefox as it does in WMP, but I suspect they'll be pretty annoyed if it works in Firefox on the computer downstairs, but not on the computer upstairs. Most users don't know what the hell a codec is and don't care. They just want the software to work, and they want it to work the same across multiple computers and platforms. And if bundling the codecs in with the browser makes stuff 'just work,' then that's where the codecs ought to live, bloat be damned. Bits are cheap, goodwill and usability are expensive. Web video is too important to a user's experience with a browser for browser developers to leave it up to the underlying OS. Bake it in, and it's guaranteed to work. If you let it depend on plugins or underlying media frameworks, then you're just asking for trouble. That said, some sort of option to let the OS handle video wouldn't be bad, with a fallback to the embedded decoder -- this would let users take advantage of OS features or plugins that are tailored for their hardware (or just bleeding edge), while still ensuring that everyone gets at least basic video support just by virtue of installing the browser. Put bluntly, video is a core part of the web and has been for some time; it's part of what many users expect a browser to do, and do well. You don't outsource core features if you want them to be done right and consistently.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      MS can't do due dilligence on every codec in the world. I suspect they spent a fair amount of money and time getting confidence in H264. Just because one of their rival companies pushes another codec hardly seems to be justification to take on responsibility for it (which they would if they shipped it).
      - chc 16y ago
        Nobody's suggesting they should perform due diligence on every codec in the world. WebM is the only codec that has any chance of actually becoming universal — that's why they should support it. The next two biggest browsers in the market are already supporting it zealously. If Microsoft really supports Web standards, they need to support WebM.
- est 16y ago
  Safari use Quicktime to playback H.264 on OS X all the time. If Microsoft is halfhearted they could have used WMPlayer control for all <video> and <audio> tags.
carson 16y ago
I think that statement is just an indication that they aren't recognizing the WebM content type yet in the video tag. I have tested this version of the preview with WebM Directshow installed and it indeed doesn't work yet.

by cracell 16y ago

kenjackson 16y ago

I believe WebM is not bundled. It will play it if the user has installed it: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow-up-on-html5-video-in-ie9.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/05/19/another-follow...

chc 16y ago

Microsoft isn't bundling the codec, but they have promised to make IE9 work well with it. Halfhearted support.

tzs 16y ago
That's called being technically competent, not being halfhearted. Codecs do not belong in browsers. People want video outside of browsers. Should everything that wants to support video have its own built-in copy of every codec? That's bloated. In addition to bloat, if each thing has its own implementation, there will be subtle (and probably not so subtle) differences in them. It will annoy users if their videos look different depending on whether they are in a browser, or they downloaded the file and are playing it in a media player. If the codec has user-setable options, the user has to set their preferences in multiple places.
- chc 16y ago
  Oh, I absolutely agree it should be included with the OS itself, but having it just in the browser is better than not having it at all. We need a standard video format that everyone can use. A standard video tag is worthless without one — you'd be better off sticking with Flash video otherwise. WebM has the chance to be that, but not if the user is required to have already installed it himself.
- Kadin 16y ago
  Gotta disagree with you a bit. Most content that users watch online isn't (easily) downloadable and playable anywhere except in a browser. And even if it was, I'm not sure that anyone except a very small minority of users would ever take advantage of it. To a growing number of users, the OS is just something that you need in order to run a web browser, nothing more. I think it's far more important to ensure that video plays easily and looks consistent across multiple machines, at least when played in the same browser. I can see someone understanding if a video doesn't look the same in Firefox as it does in WMP, but I suspect they'll be pretty annoyed if it works in Firefox on the computer downstairs, but not on the computer upstairs. Most users don't know what the hell a codec is and don't care. They just want the software to work, and they want it to work the same across multiple computers and platforms. And if bundling the codecs in with the browser makes stuff 'just work,' then that's where the codecs ought to live, bloat be damned. Bits are cheap, goodwill and usability are expensive. Web video is too important to a user's experience with a browser for browser developers to leave it up to the underlying OS. Bake it in, and it's guaranteed to work. If you let it depend on plugins or underlying media frameworks, then you're just asking for trouble. That said, some sort of option to let the OS handle video wouldn't be bad, with a fallback to the embedded decoder -- this would let users take advantage of OS features or plugins that are tailored for their hardware (or just bleeding edge), while still ensuring that everyone gets at least basic video support just by virtue of installing the browser. Put bluntly, video is a core part of the web and has been for some time; it's part of what many users expect a browser to do, and do well. You don't outsource core features if you want them to be done right and consistently.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    MS can't do due dilligence on every codec in the world. I suspect they spent a fair amount of money and time getting confidence in H264. Just because one of their rival companies pushes another codec hardly seems to be justification to take on responsibility for it (which they would if they shipped it).
    - chc 16y ago
      Nobody's suggesting they should perform due diligence on every codec in the world. WebM is the only codec that has any chance of actually becoming universal — that's why they should support it. The next two biggest browsers in the market are already supporting it zealously. If Microsoft really supports Web standards, they need to support WebM.
est 16y ago
Safari use Quicktime to playback H.264 on OS X all the time. If Microsoft is halfhearted they could have used WMPlayer control for all <video> and <audio> tags.

carson 16y ago

I think that statement is just an indication that they aren't recognizing the WebM content type yet in the video tag. I have tested this version of the preview with WebM Directshow installed and it indeed doesn't work yet.