4 ms·
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
by 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 agoLet me put it another way: Firefox won't implement DRM and Safari probably won't either (they want you to use iTunes).
- ratsbane 18y agoI 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...