OSNews

im guessing there problem with those is that they dont define a set codec. as in, you can toss in any kind of object, but unless the browser, or a plugin, understands the kind of object its dealing with, its useless.

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

this is whats being suggested for html5.

hell, isnt flash just another use of the object tag?

Edited 2007-08-21 13:56

Before the flash era sites were using object with the video in and custom controls with bitmaps, absolutely no difference. Except they were hardcoding the player with those crappy WiMP GUIDs but at least you could work around it in the browser. But now it just ships the player with the video, so you must have flash to play it. Some sites have an url to the flv in the code so you can grab it, but others have it hidden in the .swf. I repeat, braindeadness.

or what if the user wants to actually have some say in what goes on, on his computer??

flash is simply an abomination that should be put to death, right alongside anyone that would contaminate the web with it...

If the coding was referred to as HMML (HyperMedia), I'd be inclined to agree with you.

Unfortunately it's HTML, and the point of XHTML was to reinforce the point that HTML is a document language, not an interactive multimedia engine. The entire point of deprecating all rectangular nontextual elements (even IMAGE) in favor of OBJECT was to keep HTML from being needlessly corrupted by technology-based elements whose purpose and definitions were likely to be corporately controlled and highly mutable over time.

The consequences of this austerity measure are as follows:
1. The W3C is not in the position of mandating minimum codec requirements as the situation is not directly comparable to mandating alpha-enabled PNG support.
2. Content providers recognize that codecs tether users to players, providers to expensive server software, and OSS solutions like OGG offer no content protection which like it or not is a dealbreaker.
3. Macromedia provided a platform-neutral VM with its own server technology, affordable authoring tools, and noncomplex content protection (albeit crackable).

I work in this field for a university. I'd prefer everyone stuck with Real, myself, but Macromedia's solution was the least painful for end users, and they drive standards adoption as much as we try to push it.

... "content protection" is a moot point. It's bad ethically, doesn't and will never work correctly, only impair fair users' rights but barely stops people who really want to pirate stuff anyway. It's only a carot waved by vendors to make sure ppl use their proprietary solution instead of open and [Ff]ree ones. Notwithstanding the fact that their protection by DMCA/EUCD/... infringe the constitutionnally given freedom of speech of software developpers (software is speech) by forbidding writing breaking apps or forcing us to use them in apps thus forcing apps to be closed source (yes, have a look at DADVSI...), DRM should be banned along with flash.
"noncomplex content protection" ROTFL. As I said it only limits the rights of average joe to exercise fair use, does nothing to the people it should target.

It's also one more way to impair the "free fair competition" ("compétition libre et non faussée" in french), EU's primary official goal, in disfavor of open source solutions, because, until I see a formal proof, open source DRM is by essence impossible, except maybe in sun's DReaM ...

Did I disgress or something ?