Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:04 UTC
Internet Explorer I am almost flabbergasted by the spin and blunt-face upon which this news is delivered. We were just discussing the pot calling the kettle black with Apple / Adobe and now Microsoft have also come out in favour of a closed video format for an open web--IE9's HTML5 video support will allow H264 only. Update Now that the initial shock is over, I've rewritten the article to actually represent news rather than something on Twitter.
Permalink for comment 421767
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: At least its not wma!
by deathshadow on Fri 30th Apr 2010 10:30 UTC in reply to "At least its not wma!"
Member since:

I really don't see the big technical deal with supporting whatever video format that system has a codec installed for.

A point I've made over and over again. There is ZERO legitimate excuse for not supporting whatever codecs the host OS has installed apart from lazy developers... and yes, in my mind that includes the 'alleged' security issues. (Chrome has been proving that a lie it is with it's sandboxing of just about everything! Sandbox the **** codecs too!)

This is doubly true for Windows - if they were making it cross-platform they could at least use that excuse; but it's a bit likely not even making an XP version of IE9 just as they didn't make a 2k/98 version of IE7 & 8. Every other browser maker can code cross-platform; this isn't even a REAL cross-platform issue!

That they are even TALKING about what codecs to support/not support in each browser with the VIDEO tag is pure bull - and frankly should be enough to send most developers back to the intent of HTML 4 STRICT / XHTML 1.0 STRICT; SIMPLIFYING the specification by having just ONE tag - OBJECT - replace APPLET, EMBED, IMG, etc... So with HTML5 do they finally ride Microsofts case about not implementing OBJECT properly, or do they tack on even MORE tags that nobody is going to bother using?

All this in-fighting malarkey about what codec is in the specification is just more of the bullshit that HTML5 is being turned into. Honestly, I'm so fed up with it I have NO PLANS to code websites in HTML 5 until sometime around 2020 if ever.... It's the exact OPPOSITE of all the progress STRICT gave us - people can't even be bothered to learn how to use TH, CAPTION, LEGEND, FIELDSET, LABEL, ACRONYM - **** sake the only people who even try to use ABBR are the microformat junkies; so to make it even 'better' let's slap on a bunch more 'new tags' that are nothing more than overglorified DIVisions and replication of **** we can already do with less tags? Yeah, right!

HEADER - we have heading tags, we don't need more of them. Silly bull for people who can't bother learning proper heading orders... or just for people who don't realize that just like not every ejaculation needs a name, not every element needs a DIV wrapped around it.

NAV - Not just another extra wrapping element around UL's for no good reason, wouldn't it have been simpler to undeprecate MENU?!?

Etc, etc, etc...

A recently departed friend of mine

Used to make the joke that the same people who made endless nested table rubbish layouts now just make endless nested div layouts - net change zero.

I get the feeling much of HTML 5 seems like little more than legitimizing the use of excess containers around elements that don't need them - net change zero. I'm half hoping crap like this codec nonsense will lead to the eventual implosion of HTML5 so we can get back to it's original intent of making it SIMPLER, not the overcomplicated train wreck it's devolved into when compared to it's immediate predecessor.

NOT that anyone bothers using STRICT... much less use it PROPERLY. See Youtube's alleged HTML5 demo which was little more than slapping the VIDEO tag into a non-validating XHTML 1.0 tranny document - that's NOT HTML5... or the nutjobs running around with HTML 5 demo's that barely use HTML5, don't use it properly, then claim to use and be about CSS3 - with NO TRACE of any ACTUAL CSS3. News flash, -moz and -webkit are NOT CSS3 properties.

How many idiots can there be... they say it's 1 out of 3...

Edited 2010-04-30 10:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2