Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Jun 2009 15:23 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones We're on the verge of a serious evolution on the web. Right now, the common way to include video on the web is by use of Flash, a closed-source technology that is a massive resource hog. The answer is the HTML5 video tag, which allows you to embed video into HTML pages without the use of Flash or any other non-HTML technology; combined with open video codecs, this could provide the perfect opportunity to further open up and standardise the web. Sadly, not even Mozilla itself really seems to understand what it is supposed to do with the video tag, and actually advocates the use of JavaScript to implement it. Kroc Camen, OSNews editor, is very involved in making/keeping the web open, and has written an open letter to Mozilla in which he urges them to not use JavaScript for HTML video. Note that Kroc's website may not work properly in Internet Explorer. (Update The letter has been mirrored in the article, Read More for the full text)
Order by: Score:
Interesting..
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 19th Jun 2009 16:14 UTC
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

I understand the reason behind the JavaScript complaint, but I wish their was a better way the crazy hacked up browser conditionals. Javascript is certainly easier on the eyes and brain. I'm pretty sure I could find a browser that would throw chunks with it as well.

In anycase, I wouldn't beat up Mozilla for posting a suggestion that tries to reduce the reliance on flash by including a bit of javascript. Javascript is pretty universal these days. I think there may yet be an even better solution than Kroc's.

Edit: Does *not* work on amaya 11 for windows.
2nd Edit: No it does go to the download message, sorry my bad didn't read that well enough.

Edited 2009-06-19 16:23 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting..
by Kroc on Fri 19th Jun 2009 16:21 UTC in reply to "Interesting.. "
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

1. How many pages do you read the source code of in a day? Pretty honestly doesn’t matter one iota to 99% of websites. It’s all churned out by messy blog engine anyway. My website’s code is specifically designed to be read (and people do) and even then I tried to make Video for Everybody fit in reasonably well.

2. Using JavaScript to enhance a solution is just fine. Video for Everbody can be enhanced by adding JavaScript controls. It’s _requiring_ JavaScript just to access a plain HTML tag that’s plain wrong. Does it annoy you when you can’t view an image on a site because of someone’s broken JavaScript?

JavaScript may be universal in _web browsers_, but it’s not universal in RSS readers, spiders and robots, screen readers and who knows what systems in the future.

:)

edit: Smiley added because I wish to educate, not interrogate.

Edited 2009-06-19 16:26 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Interesting..
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 19th Jun 2009 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting.. "
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Good points. The screen reader that my visually impaired friend uses does work with Javascript. With all of the sites that already require javascript for stupid reasons, its almost a requirement for them.

Code that isn't easy to understand is more likely to be broken ( accidentally or maliciously) with out noticing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Interesting..
by kaiwai on Sat 20th Jun 2009 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting.. "
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1. How many pages do you read the source code of in a day? Pretty honestly doesn’t matter one iota to 99% of websites. It’s all churned out by messy blog engine anyway. My website’s code is specifically designed to be read (and people do) and even then I tried to make Video for Everybody fit in reasonably well.

2. Using JavaScript to enhance a solution is just fine. Video for Everbody can be enhanced by adding JavaScript controls. It’s _requiring_ JavaScript just to access a plain HTML tag that’s plain wrong. Does it annoy you when you can’t view an image on a site because of someone’s broken JavaScript?

JavaScript may be universal in _web browsers_, but it’s not universal in RSS readers, spiders and robots, screen readers and who knows what systems in the future.

:)

edit: Smiley added because I wish to educate, not interrogate.


Great points you have raised; it actually brings me to tears when I see such crappy code being written out on the internet. It might not be so bad if it were solely amateurs doing it but I see people who were actually educated at polytech or university making the worlds worse code - if I was their tutor I would be ashamed for not instilling some good habits.

I remember when I was learning some basic web design - even in the earliest classes you could fail an assignment simply by failing to make your website accessible, cleanly coded, non-verbose and descriptive comments for maintenance (if for a large organisation with a high staff turn over).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Interesting..
by lars3loff on Sun 21st Jun 2009 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting.. "
lars3loff Member since:
2009-06-21

Kroc, I have been working (independently) on another solution that still uses Javascript to gradually enhance, but uses plain HTML5 video markup on the page, which makes it very easy to deploy.

I have written in my blog about it: http://gettingsoftware.posterous.com/html5flash-using-html5-video-a...

The main reason why I went down the Javascript path, is because I wanted to use the HTML5 video API to create interactive media players, so I needed a fallback that could do a bit more than just playing a video. Probably these two approaches should be combined to provide a fallback for those without Javascript or without Flash (but with Quicktime or Windows Media Player)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Interesting..
by Kroc on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 11:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting.. "
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

This is a very good concept and I’ve seen other people asking about this problem. Give me a few days for me to write to you properly with my thoughts.

Reply Score: 1

v Ridiculous!
by guymac on Fri 19th Jun 2009 17:00 UTC
RE: Ridiculous!
by Kroc on Fri 19th Jun 2009 17:24 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous!"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

The point of a fallback is that it works when something is missing; requiring JS entirely defeats that purpose.

With Video for Everbody if you are using IE on Vista or up then even if you have Flash uninstalled, QuickTime uninstalled and JavaScript disabled - the video will *still* play

Reply Score: 4

Comment by guymac
by guymac on Fri 19th Jun 2009 17:06 UTC
guymac
Member since:
2008-04-28

Another point is, every site is going to end up using JavaScript controls for embedded HTML5 video anyway, so an all-JavaScript solution would make the most sense.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by guymac
by arpan on Fri 19th Jun 2009 17:20 UTC in reply to "Comment by guymac"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

A lot of sites use Javascript for file uploads. That does not mean fileuploads should only be possible using Javascript.

The basic html file upload works just fine without Javascript. In the same way, the basic "video" element should work without Javascript, having basic controls for stop, start, and the timeline should be included in the basic video html controls.

The implementation should also allow the controls to be hidden or formatted using CSS and controlled using JS.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by guymac
by Kroc on Fri 19th Jun 2009 17:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by guymac"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Right, which is _perfectly fine_, as long as the Video tag is in the document itself and not added by JavaScript. It’s okay to enhance a video with JavaScript, those of us with JS switched off when we enter a site can still play the video using its native controls or by right-clicking on it. Added safety, but at the same time no loss in functionality.

Reply Score: 3

links in article return 403
by gelendir on Fri 19th Jun 2009 17:28 UTC
gelendir
Member since:
2009-01-08

Am I the only one for which the links towards the open letter and the "Video for all" give back a 403 response (In both firefox and midori) ? I'd be really interested in reading both articles

Reply Score: 1

oops
by Ikshaar on Fri 19th Jun 2009 17:31 UTC
Ikshaar
Member since:
2005-07-14

I think the osnews effect crashes his website ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: oops
by Kroc on Fri 19th Jun 2009 17:32 UTC in reply to "oops"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I’m working on that now ;)

Edit: Should be back in 30 mins, it was just the DDoS protection on the server kicking in.

Edited 2009-06-19 17:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Why should I care?
by pepo on Fri 19th Jun 2009 18:14 UTC
pepo
Member since:
2009-06-19

I use the web with disabled Flash, Java, JavaScript, and usually Cookies.

If a site offers a video as an .ogv download link, or as an HTML 5 video, I will be able to watch it. If not, I will just skip that site.

Why should I care what Mozilla does or says? I do not even use their browser.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why should I care?
by Kroc on Fri 19th Jun 2009 18:17 UTC in reply to "Why should I care?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Because as the letter outlines, a million crappy dreamweaver developers are going to be copy/pasting code from somewhere, and if that’s JS-only video insertion then you’re not going to see a lot of videos, ever, even though your browser is perfectly capable if only the website’s programmers had a clue.

This matters to everybody using the web either publishing, or viewing video in the near future.

If you don’t care, that’s fine—but I’m fighting so that you don’t have to care and video “just works” for you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why should I care?
by gauthierm on Fri 19th Jun 2009 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Why should I care?"
gauthierm Member since:
2009-06-19

Please refer Dreamweaver developers to this post on using audio and video in Firefox:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox

It's well written and doesn't require JavaScript. It even specifically mentions how to use Flash as a fallback without using JavaScript.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why should I care?
by Beta on Fri 19th Jun 2009 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why should I care?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Did you RTFA? No? Go back, and you’ll see the link pointing to hacks.mozilla.org

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why should I care?
by boldingd on Fri 19th Jun 2009 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why should I care?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Is it just me, or did someone forget a closing italics tag? ;)

Edited 2009-06-19 19:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Why should I care?
by memson on Mon 22nd Jun 2009 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why should I care?"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

The linked article looks like it was perfectly justified to me - did YOU even look at the article he linked to? NO? Go look.

Reply Score: 2

In the spec
by matto1990 on Fri 19th Jun 2009 19:55 UTC
matto1990
Member since:
2009-04-18

If you read the HTML5 spec you'll see that the JavaScript is an intended part of the <video> tag.

http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/video.h...

Beware: It's long ;)

What you need to understand is that this isn't an issue with Mozilla, it's an issue with the spec - well... in your view anyway. Personally I can't see anything wrong with requiring JavaScript. The links and buttons that will be linked to the media.play() method will likely be part of the HTML document, and therefore clickable using a screen reader or some other sort of accessibility technology. Having JavScript will not stop people clicking these links.

The only problem comes is when you don't have Javascript enabled, and almost everyone has it enabled. The only people that don't are people who know what it is; and if they know what it is they are likely to know the consequences of turning it off. Most people who browse the web have no idea what JavaScript is, so they just leave everything as the default (which is on).

Personally I see this as a non-issue. As the web evolves the technology around it has to as well. If this means one web technology (HTML) becoming strongly linked to another (JavaScript) so be it. We've had far too long where the web stood still because of lack of innovation, and we're paying the price now. The only way to innovate is to evolve, and that does mean making some changes that might not seem like a brilliant idea at the time; but as the web moves on the changes that are made will become accepted and become the new standard.

PS. sorry for the long and rambling rant ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: In the spec
by Kroc on Fri 19th Jun 2009 20:03 UTC in reply to "In the spec"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You misinterpret the spec (yes, I have read it).

<video> has a JavaScript interface (so that you can roll your own controls and interact with it) -- but JavaScript is not required for the video element to exist and to play video. The video element works without any JavaScript.

That is no different than changing an images size or src attributes using JavaScript. Completely optional and layered on top.

What Mozilla have published is a method of using JavaScript to detect capabilities and then write elements into the page using JavaScript. This is universally bad, regardless of the output being Video / Audio or Img.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: In the spec
by matto1990 on Fri 19th Jun 2009 21:33 UTC in reply to "RE: In the spec"
matto1990 Member since:
2009-04-18

I got ya. It's about a code snippet, not the implementation itself.

I did understand that the spec meant that but from the way I read your letter the first time it looked like you were objecting to that.

In that case I agree with you, as browser sniffing is never a good thing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: In the spec
by DrillSgt on Sat 20th Jun 2009 05:51 UTC in reply to "RE: In the spec"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

You misinterpret the spec (yes, I have read it).

<video> has a JavaScript interface (so that you can roll your own controls and interact with it) -- but JavaScript is not required for the video element to exist and to play video. The video element works without any JavaScript.

That is no different than changing an images size or src attributes using JavaScript. Completely optional and layered on top.

What Mozilla have published is a method of using JavaScript to detect capabilities and then write elements into the page using JavaScript. This is universally bad, regardless of the output being Video / Audio or Img.


Well, the problem is there are no released browsers at all that even support HTML 5. I do agree with your letter, however according to the Mozilla site you do not need JavaScript to run the video tag with the beta. It is not a requirement. https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox

Ignore the hacks blog, as that is not from the actual developers of Firefox. What you have been reading is the thoughts of others, not how the standard will actually be implemented, nor is implemented (please try the RC's)

Reply Score: 2

RE: In the spec
by boldingd on Fri 19th Jun 2009 20:03 UTC in reply to "In the spec"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

The point isn't so much using JavaScript at all, or using it to control the playing of embeded media, but using JavaScript to dynamically insert the Video element in the first place. On a site where JavaScript is being used to selectively embed the video tag when the page is rendered, browsers with JavaScript turned off (or other apps that may not be full browsers and won't implement JavaScript at all) will not see the Video element at all. I think that was his point: coding a page that will not actually have any content at all without JavaScript being enabled is a bad idea.

Edited 2009-06-19 20:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

WM then QT then Flash
by Gzzy on Fri 19th Jun 2009 21:31 UTC
Gzzy
Member since:
2005-11-21

Downgrading to QT before WM will cause a lot of grief for Windows users. Many PCs have Quicktime installed as part of an iTunes install but rarely is it the main/default media player for video and web content. Downgrade to Windows Media first then Quicktime.

Mac and iPhone users won't be affected at all because those platforms don't have WMP.

Actually, it's better to put Flash behind both WM and QT. Flash is only the standard for web video because of its ubiquity and as such it should be treated as the lowest common denominator while other less resource intensive and higher quality formats should be pushed forward.

Reply Score: 3

RE: WM then QT then Flash
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 20th Jun 2009 12:23 UTC in reply to "WM then QT then Flash"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Downgrading to QT before WM will cause a lot of grief for Windows users.

Yeah, really - when it comes to CPU-hogging, Flash looks downright svelte compared to the Windows version of Quicktime.

Reply Score: 2

RE: WM then QT then Flash
by elmimmo on Sun 21st Jun 2009 08:58 UTC in reply to "WM then QT then Flash"
elmimmo Member since:
2005-09-17

I think it is about being practical. MP4 through Flash is omnipresent. QuickTime can play it. Windows Media Player, out of the box until Windows Vista, cannot (correct me if I am wrong).

Reply Score: 1

+1
by Savior on Fri 19th Jun 2009 22:04 UTC
Savior
Member since:
2006-09-02

I agree wholeheartedly. I also browse the net with JavaScript, cookies, ads disabled, and it would be such a relief if I didn't have to allow them just to watch a video on a random site. I know it is wishful thinking, but it would really be about time (actually it's already late by at least five years) to come up with a security model for JS. As it is now, JavaScript is just a PITA from both (user & developer) sides.

But thinking about it, it's not just JS: CSS, Flash, Java applets, the ActiveX hell 5 years ago... seems like the web is kind of the garbage dump of incompetent technologies.

Reply Score: 1

obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

This was a very interesting article.

As the article says, it's one thing to point out a problem, but it's much harder to come up with a solution. It's *great* that Kroc has done so, and I fully support his efforts. He's taken a very constructive approach to things.

Hopefully, Kroc's approach will be adopted by Mozilla (and not stymied by any "Not Invented Here" stuff), as good solutions are good no matter where they come from.
;)

Edited 2009-06-20 00:00 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Whining about fallback
by tyrione on Sat 20th Jun 2009 03:18 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

when it specifically states in the spec that video is not meant to:


A video element represents a video or movie.

Content may be provided inside the video element. User agents should not show this content to the user; it is intended for older Web browsers which do not support video, so that legacy video plugins can be tried, or to show text to the users of these older browser informing them of how to access the video contents.


Note:In particular, this content is not fallback content intended to address accessibility concerns. To make video content accessible to the blind, deaf, and those with other physical or cognitive disabilities, authors are expected to provide alternative media streams and/or to embed accessibility aids (such as caption or subtitle tracks) into their media streams.


It's not intended to address special needs accessibility markets.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Whining about fallback
by Moochman on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:35 UTC in reply to "Whining about fallback"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

If I understand correctly, the quote you reference is talking about the area inside the <video></video> tags, saying the contents you put there *should* be used as a fallback for older browsers, *but not as a fallback for accessibility purposes*....

I don't think Kroc was ever making an argument for using the fallback content for accessibility, though. He was saying that in the future, the <video> tag itself will be good for accessibility.... But this can only be possible if it is directly embedded into the HTML, and not inserted via JavaScript.

Edited 2009-06-20 09:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by doublec
by doublec on Sat 20th Jun 2009 07:59 UTC
doublec
Member since:
2006-09-25

The 'hacks' article is one video users approach to doing fallback. There are plenty of others and just because one Mozilla person uses JavaScript does not mean that Mozilla is pushing a JavaScript only solution. I'm a Mozilla developer and I've given non-JavaScript fallback examples in the past. For example:

http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2009/02/fallback-options-for-html5-vid...

Mandating that people *must* not use JavaScript is silly as is mandating that people *must* use it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by doublec
by Kroc on Sat 20th Jun 2009 08:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by doublec"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

But in what world is a JavaScript-only solution simply *better* than an HTML-solution, or an HTML-solution that optionally uses JavaScript on top?

As the article says -- what of robots and spiders wanting to index <video> and do mashups?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by doublec
by doublec on Sat 20th Jun 2009 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by doublec"
doublec Member since:
2006-09-25

I never said it was better or worse. As I mentioned I advocate the non-JavaScript mechanism myself. You should be directing your comments at the website that is using the JavaScript based fallback and not at Mozilla as a whole.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by doublec
by Beta on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by doublec"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Kroc (and myself, for I have signed it) are trying to encourage Mozilla to have best-practice guidelines. This letter shouldn’t exist, but it does, because it seems while some at Mozilla completely agree, there are article writers that do not (or rather, have not thought about it, choose not to, we dont know).

Want to have a javascript-injecting video post? Fine, just prefix it with dont-do-this-unless-you-must in 24em red Comic Sans.

Recent faux pas on Planet Mozilla: video demo that useragent sniffed, SlideShare widgets, Vimeo, Youtube & flash-only air.mozilla.com. Not a very good advert for Open Web, is it?

Basically: If it can be done better, it should.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by doublec
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by doublec"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Recent faux pas on Planet Mozilla: video demo that useragent sniffed, SlideShare widgets, Vimeo, Youtube & flash-only air.mozilla.com. Not a very good advert for Open Web, is it?

Basically: If it can be done better, it should.


How about the Open Video Conference, whose live streams required... Flash.

Just saying.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by doublec
by Beta on Sat 20th Jun 2009 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by doublec"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

How about the Open Video Conference, whose live streams required... Flash.

Just saying.

Whole-heartedly agree, myself and kroc were ranting about it on twitter ;) (+identi.ca)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by doublec
by doublec on Sun 21st Jun 2009 04:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by doublec"
doublec Member since:
2006-09-25

Recent faux pas on Planet Mozilla: video demo that useragent sniffed, SlideShare widgets, Vimeo, Youtube & flash-only air.mozilla.com. Not a very good advert for Open Web, is it?


Planet Mozilla is an aggregation of weblogs of people that contribute to Mozilla. Mozilla has no control over the content of the weblogs and cannot tell them what to do. Mozilla does not even mandate what employees of Mozilla can blog about. For actual mozilla.com resources I agree that using the video element is good.

You mention air.mozilla.com. It has for a while now used Ogg Theora and the video element for streaming.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by doublec
by Kroc on Sun 21st Jun 2009 06:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by doublec"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Certainly true, but as a mother to it’s engineers and community Mozilla can set the standards that people *should* follow. Sometimes you can’t leave everybody to their own devices because that’s not enough.

If Mozilla were to put out an official announcement that they will be using HTML5 video on their own sites, and provide code samples, instruction and encouragement to their bloggers -- uptake would be swift.

Quite simply not enough people are thinking about HTML5 video, it’s a complete afterthought and they use Flash instead out of habit and a lack of sample code / encouragement.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Sat 20th Jun 2009 08:52 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

1) Not sure I'd take web design advice or even criticism on things like accessibility from someone who's website does not work cross browser, uses absurdly undersized fixed metric fonts on a fixed width layout in colors that do not meet the accessibility norms laid out in the WCAG, cannot even be checked for errors because no character encoding is declared, and is actively attempting to deploy technologies we won't be able to actually use on REAL websites until sometime around 2016 if ever - at least if how long it took for HTML4/CSS2 to reach deployable is any indication... Hell Gecko STILL hasn't even got HTML 4/CSS2 complete correctly! How's that bugzilla #915 coming along? What's that, you're working on a specification not even out of draft yet FIRST?!? (Oh yeah, that open source fixes documented bugs at a lightning pace)

But then I'm one of the few people APPLAUDING Microsoft for concentrating on getting HTML 4 and CSS2 working right BEFORE tackling specifications not even out of draft.

2) His complaint about javascript and accessibility - It's called NOSCRIPT, try it some time.

3) The reason for the use of script is for GRACEFUL DEGRADATION since not all browsers support it, or are going to support it properly any time soon. Even with the in-roads Firefox has made, 60-70% of the world is still on IE and they have no plans to include support - pages running that technology run the risk of joe sixpack telling you where to shove it when existing flash sites work just fine.

4) Javascript security issues - given that the majority of users aren't smart enough (no offense folks) to even know you can turn javascript off (as evidenced by the people still using IE in the first place, again, no offense) so this is really a non-issue... besides, if people stopped using AJAX for stupid pointless crap in situations where it opens the door to XSS exploits (newest hotmail iteration much?), you wouldn't have this problem.

Of course that argument is a hoot since almost all video websites use javascript already to display their flash so they can try and prevent users from downloading the videos - which means right now NOBODY actually putting videos on websites is going to actually SUPPORT the VIDEO element.

5) "Video for Everybody" - because those STUPID MALFING IE comment conditionals, 38 lines of code without the comments, needing to make sure you have your video encoded in no less than four different video formats, for something that defaults back to flash in the first damned place for IE and Opera... Just exactly what's in that kool aid that makes you think this is a solution ANY developer would actually want to deploy?

As a web developer who's increasing disgust with the industry has me on the ropes and considering hanging up my shingle for good since nobody seems to actually care about cross browser compatibility, accessibility, clean well formatted well documented easy to maintain code, and instead just want to sleaze out a website any old way filling it to the gills with get rich quick advertising nonsense - It is my informed opinion that BOTH sides of this particular argument are sterling examples of everything wrong with web development today.

Edited 2009-06-20 09:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by Kroc on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Video for Everybody only requires two encodes. I don't know where you get the idea of 4 from -- the FAQ even answers that question. Video for Everybody uses just one OGG encode and one MP4 encode. Perfectly reasonable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by deathshadow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

AND a .mov encode and a .swf encode for the fallbacks for IE...

Gah, I'd pull it up now and point out the exact code, but his site is returning 403 right now.

Ok, got it from my cache... alright, my bad there, the .swf is a generic flash player.

At which point why the **** use that 38 lines of code to do what that file you would already need to provide for fallbacks can handle in all browsers using six lines of code?

Edited 2009-06-20 09:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by deathshadow
by Kroc on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by deathshadow"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

NO.

The MP4 file is used in Safari, Quicktime and in the Flash as well (Flash 10 can play H.264)

The OGG file is used in Chrome 3 and Firefox 3.

Stop spouting FUD when you haven't read the article and the actual author is right here, correcting you.

I don't know where you get 38 lines from. In the article, I provide a more compact example that's 22 lines, and even then, that's well spaced; because technically only one single line break is required by the code.

And even then, what does that matter? Most websites output badly indented code all over the place that nobody reads. VFE is a *solution* to an end-user problem.

Video for Everybody works perfectly with IE. It's just HTML, there's no voodoo. I've just made some code that means website owners can embed video and ensure it plays in more places than just Flash alone can reach. What the crap is so evil about that??

Edited 2009-06-20 09:45 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by deathshadow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Ah yes, the wild claim of FUD when you cannot argue the actual points... Though is the site being actively edited right now? It seems to alternate between 404 and 403 and then pulling it up.

I READ the article (after zooming in 60% in opera to make it legible on my system since I'm on a 1920x1200, run large fonts/120dpi and don't plaster my nose a foot from the screen) though I only glanced through the code, but lemme ask you this:

Are you saying the website in question will pass any code validator? Are you saying it meets WCAG guidelines for accessability? Are you saying it does not use fixed metric fonts? Are you saying HTML 5 is actually real world deployable or even will be within the next five years? Are you saying that most existing major successful video websites do not in fact use flash to make direct downloads impossible? Are you saying you can't use Javascript without graceful degredation? Are you saying that the 'video for everyone' doesn't link in at LEAST three different media files to do the job of one .flv? Are you saying it is not 38 lines of code once comments are stripped to do the job of a 6 to 12 line validating HTML 4 OBJECT tag without any of that IE conditional nonsense and bloated code?

The best you can come up with is to argue that I miscounted the number of video files used - an easy mistake since you state the SAME MP4 file seven times, and the same .ogv file twice, and STILL have to load flash to give it backwards compatability?

You'll excuse me when I say the whole thing reads like ranting about some oddly percieved butthurt from using FLASH or Javascript, both proven and reasonably reliable technologies (when not abused for things they weren't meant for) But then I'm one of the people that open/closed means jack **** to me, I just want it to work and if that means closed and even PAYING to use it, big deal. Again the whole obsession with ogg over flash means bupkis to me and likely means bupkis to anyone apart from the handful of people raging against the 'evil corporations'.

Fight the power man... The man is keeping you down.

-- edit --

I don't know where you get 38 lines from. In the article, I provide a more compact example that's 22 lines, and even then, that's well spaced; because technically only one single line break is required by the code.


Alright, are you actively changing the page every two minutes or something? I saw no compact version, now the code isn't even showing up on the page at all (had to go all the way to the live demo page)

Which with the 400, 404 and 403 errors is getting entertaining at best, laughable at worst.

-- edit edit --

Oh, and like 22 lines with IE conditionals is somehow better than 38 for a lousy little video embed? (to come up with the 38 I took the only code sample I saw and stripped unneeded comment lines) Gah and we wonder why we see the average website blowing 60-120k of markup to deliver 1 to 5k of content.

Edited 2009-06-20 09:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by deathshadow
by Moochman on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by deathshadow"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not about insulting his personal website nor about whether HTML5 will be implementable. It's about one f--king tag that is quite useful and without question implementable within the year.

And by the way, "I don't know if I should trust the opinion" of someone who brings up Microsoft as the prime example of "correctly implementing standards".

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Sat 20th Jun 2009 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by deathshadow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

It's about one f--king tag that is quite useful and without question implementable within the year.

When using that one tag neccessitates some ten to fifteen extra lines of code and STILL including the old way of handling it, that's not an improvement or a great way to sell people on using it.

And by the way, "I don't know if I should trust the opinion" of someone who brings up Microsoft as the prime example of "correctly implementing standards".

I didn't say they did. They most certainly did not even come close, even with IE8. What I said was they held off on even TRYING to add HTML5 and/or CSS3 until they made an attempt at getting HTML4/CSS2 correct.

Key word being attempt, as they fell a bit short of that goal since they have to maintain backwards compatibility in trident, or risk breaking all those applications that used Trident the same way many programs use XULRunner.

Were that Mozilla showed that type of battleplan, but instead they have people coding **** not even out of draft when they've not even polished off specifications that have been in 'final' for OVER A DECADE... as evidenced by bugzilla entries about rendering bugs that have been around since before Firefox was a twinkle in a FLOSS fanboy's eye that have repeatedly been marked as 'assigned' for the next major iteration then unmarked when the code to fix it never materializes in time.

Edited 2009-06-20 10:06 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by deathshadow
by Moochman on Sat 20th Jun 2009 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by deathshadow"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

When using that one tag neccessitates some ten to fifteen extra lines of code and STILL including the old way of handling it, that's not an improvement or a great way to sell people on using it.


That's the way web development has always been. Code in the fallbacks until the transition period is over. That's the way it's always been and there's unfortunately nothing that can be done about it.

That doesn't automatically make the <video> tag useless, it just means that things are a little more complicated in the interim, until all browsers have implemented it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by deathshadow
by Kroc on Sat 20th Jun 2009 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by deathshadow"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You can use just the video tag on it's own and that's it.

My code specifically uses the built in facilities to fall back to Flash and QuickTime so that the same code can be be used to transition a site over to the video element without dumping old browsers like IE6.

You say yourself you don't care as long as it works, so why are you ranting against the code, when you are implying you only care about the final solution, which works far better than Flash alone. When native HTML5 video is used, it uses far less browser resources.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by deathshadow
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by deathshadow"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Alright, are you actively changing the page every two minutes or something? I saw no compact version, now the code isn't even showing up on the page at all (had to go all the way to the live demo page)


The compact version has always been there. I can now, since I helped testing the page.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by deathshadow
by Beta on Sat 20th Jun 2009 10:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by deathshadow"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

The best you can come up with is to argue that I miscounted the number of video files used - an easy mistake since you state the SAME MP4 file seven times, and the same .ogv file twice, and STILL have to load flash to give it backwards compatability?


These are references to files, they only need one file for all the same references. Do you understand URLs?
You also don’t seem to understand fallback. Only one file is loaded once it has found a playable-option.
Let’s walk through references with mother…

Native Ogg - Chrome, Firefox 3.5, Safari (if you have XiphQT)
Native h264 - Chrome, Safari
Flash 10-based h264 - any browser with Flash 10
Flash 10-based h264 - hack for IE
Quicktime h264 - iPhone
Quicktime h264 - IE
Quicktime h264 - Safari/Chrome

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by deathshadow
by Kroc on Sat 20th Jun 2009 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by deathshadow"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You forgot to add:
(Windows Media Player loads if QuickTime is not installed for IE/Vista and up)

QuickTime - iPhone
Windows Media Player - IE/Vista,7
Final Fallback Text with Donwload Links - VLC / Pam Pre / Anything else

I can't see why people are so vehemently against something that makes sure that videos just play in their browser and they don't have to care about the code at all.

Edited 2009-06-20 10:14 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by deathshadow
by deathshadow on Sat 20th Jun 2009 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by deathshadow"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

These are references to files, they only need one file for all the same references. Do you understand URLs?

Englisc, mōdor wyrter! Gedōn ēow cweþan hit!?!

I didn't say load, I said STATE. I get twitchy about declaring the same file twice in a standard flash embed to get a validating cross browser implementation, 7 times for one video format and twice for another? Bloat Bloat Bloat Bloat Bloat in the markup for no good reason apart from implementing something that apparently isn't ready for prime-time.


You also don’t seem to understand fallback. Only one file is loaded once it has found a playable-option.

You mean dropthrough, and yes I realized only ONE of them is actually loaded. It would be pretty ***** stupid otherwise. Hence my dislike for it - since we're talking about stating the SAME basic file/embed over and over nine different ways with two encodings. **** that on a deployment website.

Though I have equal wrath for the Mozilla page on the exact same grounds in terms of technique.

Seems like one hell of a lot of effort to avoid using a FLV. I could MAYBE see the MP4 playback fallback for 'less capable' devices like the iPhone, but there has to be a point where you tell them "get to a real computer you're not playing the HD version of this movie"

But then I'm more in favor of letting the user CHOOSE their video format before playback instead of just shoving the choice down their throat using browser sniffing and other chicanery. That's the path that leads to mistakes like Opera 10 being detected as Opera 1.0

Edited 2009-06-20 10:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by deathshadow
by Beta on Sat 20th Jun 2009 10:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by deathshadow"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

I didn't say load, I said STATE.

OMG, noo, a few bytes duplicated that mod_gzip can vanish away…

I get twitchy about declaring the same file twice in a standard flash embed to get a validating cross browser implementation

Might wanna blame shitty browser implementations for that

for no good reason apart from implementing something that apparently isn't ready for prime-time.

You’ve missed the point of it entirely.
We are at a point of moving from one crappy method of doing things, to a simple clean single-tag that will cover everything.
As we migrate to the new, we still have to bring along the old, or else, the new alienates people, and we’re stuck with the old.
Everything inside the <video> you see should have been used previously for video, the fact it didn’t is besides the point.

I don’t know how the future will go, but it is very likely in a year or two, the code can be trimmed to have fewer fallbacks- even so, the previous verbose code will still work.

SAME basic file/embed over and over nine different ways with two encodings. **** that on a deployment website.

It’s still only two media files, one mini flash flv, and some basic HTML. wtf is your problem?

Seems like one hell of a lot of effort to avoid using a FLV.

And for the people that didn’t have Flash? What did they see? An empty box? Seems nothing to me to get that advantage…

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by deathshadow
by galvanash on Sun 21st Jun 2009 05:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by deathshadow"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

I'm not going to bother quoting any of the crap you have posted so far in this thread - there isn't a shred of it that is worthy of a reasoned response.

If you don't like the video tag and think using flash video is the way to go, well have fun. To each their own - I couldn't care less. But don't pretend your reasons are rational - they aren't.

The purpose of the web having a standards body are not to tell the browser implementers what to do - that is YOUR JOB. Web developers are the ones who decide what standards get supported, not implementers. Remember the blink tag? The point is if everyone uses the video tag and gives it preferential treatment, guess what happens???

I'm a professional web developer and I definitely want video tag support. Therefore I am going to implement it. The browsers will come around eventually...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by deathshadow
by Moochman on Sat 20th Jun 2009 09:51 UTC in reply to "Comment by deathshadow"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Hehe, using Microsoft as a sterling example of "sticking to the standards" -- what a laugh!!!!

The <video> tag is something so basic that it should have been in HTML since version 3.2. That is the reason Mozilla (and every other browser maker other than Microsoft, btw) is pushing for it, "official" standardization process be damned.

Reply Score: 2

Video For Everyone doesn't work for me
by billysmith35 on Sat 20th Jun 2009 15:52 UTC
billysmith35
Member since:
2009-06-20

I think the article is right on.

However, I've visited the Video For Everyone site with the latest version of Safari (Version 4.0 (5530.17)) and on the iPhone with OS 3.0.

I'm under the impression that that site has a video on it.

However it is not playable on the iPhone or in Safari 4.

In Safari 4, I can't even move the slider or anything. There is no video frame. There is just a big empty space where the video frame should be with the unusable controls under it.

In Safari on the IPhone, I see a video frame with a quick time logo in the lower right hand corner. In the middle of the frame I see a triangle with a circle around it with a slash thru it. Kind of like a "No Smoking" sign only I think this is trying to say "No Video Playback".

Perhaps I missed something. I was under the impression that the article was stating specifically that it would work on these two platforms.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I believe Kroc's hosting provider removed the actual video. Not sure though.

Reply Score: 1

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Yes, sorry to say that the videos are down at this moment, but I should have it solved before the day is out. Apologies for the inconvenience!

Reply Score: 1

Very good article
by reez on Sat 20th Jun 2009 19:55 UTC
reez
Member since:
2006-06-28

Only wanted to say: Very good article
A good article about real problems, real arguments written with real knowledge.
That's why I like OSnews!

Reply Score: 3

My Objection
by james_parker on Sat 20th Jun 2009 23:40 UTC
james_parker
Member since:
2005-06-29

I have an objection to Kroc's open letter preventing me from signing it. The objection is not to the technical approach or the details; rather it is the call to remove the current blog post. The post should remain, and a second post made, should the original author be persuaded. An update to the post, pointing to the update would also be quite reasonable.

Without this, the history and discussion will be lost; further, it shows disrespect for the original author, who did in fact expend useful effort that should be recognized and encouraged.

I would be happy to sign a letter modified in this way.

Reply Score: 1

RE: My Objection
by Kroc on Tue 23rd Jun 2009 07:55 UTC in reply to "My Objection"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

You’ve got your wish!

Reply Score: 1

elmimmo
Member since:
2005-09-17

Sorry if a bit offtopic, but I just wanted to remark that video should already be far more compatible with all sorts of devices (such as the iPhone) without the need to wait for HTML5 to come (although it sure is welcome) if everyone used [SWFObject] to embed video and sound files.

[SWFObject]: http://code.google.com/p/swfobject

For some reason, it never became widespread.

Reply Score: 1

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

SWFObject is another JavaScript solution and so isn’t as comprehensive as Video for Everybody, but also as we will bring out in the podcast soon to be published -- <video> goes well beyond what Flash can do, and should be favoured.

Reply Score: 1

HTML5 applications are questionable
by wojnicki on Tue 23rd Jun 2009 10:31 UTC
wojnicki
Member since:
2009-06-23

Most of the features HTML5 suppose to deliver are already present in HTML4.2! The battle over the video tag is pointless, nobody needs that tag! There is already object tag which allows to embed whatever is needed including audio and video. It's up to the browser/plugin whether is supports a given data type or not.

It would be much better if one (W3C) could standardize the data types instead, saying that such and such video or audio streams should be covered by the browser, as it is for images or fonts right now.

The whole buzz seems to me like pushing the web in pointless direction.

Reply Score: 1