On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:24:31AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > Additionnaly, the "modern" www tends to force the user to have a script-able > www browser, even though many www sites could provide their services with a > noscript www browser through a cleverly crafted main www portal or a dedicated > noscript www portal on the side of the main (with all bells and whistles) www > portal. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ^ > | > That's where the real fight is > > For instance, youtube could provide a noscript www portal with <video> and/or > <audio> html elements. EZ and reasonable to implement even for inexperienced > coders around the globe. But no. You _must_ have a script-able www browser to > enjoy youtube (the terms of use even forbid users to employ anything else in > order to watch/listen to a video/audio stream). I have to admit, html needs a > little extension to <video>/<audio> in order to support split video/audio > streams. Basically, we would need a simple html-ed "DASH" manifest. But > vp[98]/opus high/med/low qualities video/audio combined streams should be > enough in most cases. (remainging cases would be handled with the standard > "download then view" way).
Actually, I thought again on this html-ed "DASH" manifest. It would be useless. Just need a "DASH manifest" mime type in the <video> or <audio> elements and let the media infrastructure handle it. Youtube has no more excuses. -- Sylvain
