Martijn van Oosterhout schrieb: > Sorry, this doesn't follow. Calling the tag <video> is completely > orthoginal to whether it's implemented by a plugin or not. To support > it all Firefox et al would need to do is convert it to the equivalent > <embed> tag or whatever internally...
The <video> tag is supposed to offer "first class" support for video content just like <img> usually supports JPEG and GIF in a way so content providers can rely on it. To the end user it shouldn't matter if <video> is transformed to <embed> on-the-fly. > Most (all?) program that manipulate video/audio data do so via > plugins. That's because it's easier that way than trying to build > support for every odd format someone might want to use into your > binary... Albeit the <video> functionality may be implemented using a plugin the talk over at WHATWG is about "native" support for video. That means that browser packages have to come with at least one codec (no matter if it's hardwired into the browser itself or seperated into an external module). This doesn't change the possibilty that if Mozilla ends up supporting a non-free format in their official builds Debian may not be able to ship a browser offering the same feature set, leaving Debian users in the dust when it comes to "first class" web video. Maik Merten -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
