4 ms·

The HTML 5 video and audio tags are coming - it may be a long time before they get here, but when they finally do will there still be a need for Flash or Silver

The HTML 5 video and audio tags are coming - it may be a long time before they get here, but when they finally do will there still be a need for Flash or Silverlight? Anything else besides video that they do can be done with Javascript. Will we still need them in five years?

wmf 18y ago
I doubt the video tag will support DRM or more advanced Flash features like dynamic streaming. Most sites don't need these features, but those that do will keep using Flash.
- utnick 18y ago
  I doubt audio or video recording will be supported by the video tag also
- mustpax 18y ago
  It's my understanding that the video tag will support arbitrary back-end video processors. There's no reason that the video stream cannot be encrypted with some DRM scheme that's decrypted by the backend. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
  - wmf 18y ago
    Let me put it another way: Firefox won't implement DRM and Safari probably won't either (they want you to use iTunes).
  - ratsbane 18y ago
    I think that's correct. The current draft specifies that an implementation (browser) may support any video codec or no codec at all (e.g. lynx). There's a lot going into the determination of which codec to use if more than one might be appropriate. As wmf mentioned about - DRM and dynamic streaming, I'm wondering the same but I think that can be handled by appropriate codecs. (Which may be just moving the plug-in issue to be one involving codecs, but let's hope popular browsers will ship with sufficiently useful ones.) The whatwg draft is really quite interesting... http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video-and-audio-codecs-for-video-elements http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video-and...
senthil_rajasek 18y ago
2D/3D graphics... although there are pretty decent graphics libraries implemented using js they all pretty much rely on the canvas tag (not natively supported in IE, but only via 3rd party plugins like excanvas)
kierank 18y ago
It's unlikely at the moment that the HTML5 video tag will feature a worthwhile codec. (i.e. it won't support H.264)
- blasdel 18y ago
  The <video> element doesn't feature any codec, which is a lot better than A) specifying the piece-of-shit Theora or B) specifying something worthwhile but 'encumbered'. The point is the DOM api for controlling playback from Javascript, not the codec implementation. In practice everyone will support h264, because terrific implementations ship with OS X, Windows, and Ubuntu (at least once you check the "I am not gnutarded" box). If the BBC's Dirac project doesn't flame out, that could end up being a specifiable free codec. Theora is not remotely viable.
  - wmf 18y ago
    The OSes include codecs, but will Firefox use them? https://developer.mozilla.org/En/HTML/Element/Video https://developer.mozilla.org/En/HTML/Element/Video http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2008/04/firefox-html5-video-with-gstreamer.html http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2008/04/firefox-html5-video-wit... (Extra credit for the word "gnutarded".)
  - doublec 18y ago
    Windows XP does not ship with an h264 codec. It is actually quite difficult for a user to find an h264 codec for Windows if they want to playback videos. Another issue with H.264 playback is the licensing costs. According to the mpegla website, after 31st December 2010 content producers will have to pay money just to stream content, let along decode or encode to H.264.
    - DarkShikari 18y ago
      According to the mpegla website, after 31st December 2010 content producers will have to pay money just to stream content, let along decode or encode to H.264. AFAIK, Dec. 2010 is when the current licensing agreement expires and a new one is drawn up. They merely reserve the right to change the agreement to add a fee; they don't say that they will.

wmf 18y ago

I doubt the video tag will support DRM or more advanced Flash features like dynamic streaming. Most sites don't need these features, but those that do will keep using Flash.

utnick 18y ago
I doubt audio or video recording will be supported by the video tag also
mustpax 18y ago
It's my understanding that the video tag will support arbitrary back-end video processors. There's no reason that the video stream cannot be encrypted with some DRM scheme that's decrypted by the backend. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
- wmf 18y ago
  Let me put it another way: Firefox won't implement DRM and Safari probably won't either (they want you to use iTunes).
- ratsbane 18y ago
  I think that's correct. The current draft specifies that an implementation (browser) may support any video codec or no codec at all (e.g. lynx). There's a lot going into the determination of which codec to use if more than one might be appropriate. As wmf mentioned about - DRM and dynamic streaming, I'm wondering the same but I think that can be handled by appropriate codecs. (Which may be just moving the plug-in issue to be one involving codecs, but let's hope popular browsers will ship with sufficiently useful ones.) The whatwg draft is really quite interesting... http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video-and-audio-codecs-for-video-elements http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video-and...

senthil_rajasek 18y ago

2D/3D graphics... although there are pretty decent graphics libraries implemented using js they all pretty much rely on the canvas tag (not natively supported in IE, but only via 3rd party plugins like excanvas)

kierank 18y ago

It's unlikely at the moment that the HTML5 video tag will feature a worthwhile codec. (i.e. it won't support H.264)

blasdel 18y ago
The <video> element doesn't feature any codec, which is a lot better than A) specifying the piece-of-shit Theora or B) specifying something worthwhile but 'encumbered'. The point is the DOM api for controlling playback from Javascript, not the codec implementation. In practice everyone will support h264, because terrific implementations ship with OS X, Windows, and Ubuntu (at least once you check the "I am not gnutarded" box). If the BBC's Dirac project doesn't flame out, that could end up being a specifiable free codec. Theora is not remotely viable.
- wmf 18y ago
  The OSes include codecs, but will Firefox use them? https://developer.mozilla.org/En/HTML/Element/Video https://developer.mozilla.org/En/HTML/Element/Video http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2008/04/firefox-html5-video-with-gstreamer.html http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2008/04/firefox-html5-video-wit... (Extra credit for the word "gnutarded".)
- doublec 18y ago
  Windows XP does not ship with an h264 codec. It is actually quite difficult for a user to find an h264 codec for Windows if they want to playback videos. Another issue with H.264 playback is the licensing costs. According to the mpegla website, after 31st December 2010 content producers will have to pay money just to stream content, let along decode or encode to H.264.
  - DarkShikari 18y ago
    According to the mpegla website, after 31st December 2010 content producers will have to pay money just to stream content, let along decode or encode to H.264. AFAIK, Dec. 2010 is when the current licensing agreement expires and a new one is drawn up. They merely reserve the right to change the agreement to add a fee; they don't say that they will.