Html 5

[gizmo33]

Are there any plans to switch to an HTML 5 player on Rev3? Would people want this?

[tokenuser]

I am in two minds about this.

1. Pros - no flash plugins. What a buggy, bloated piece of crap thats become ... and the experience between platforms is terrible (hardware acceleration on Windows, but not OSX).
2. Cons - not all browser are supporting the emerging HTML5 standard. As it stands, its not a standard (is it at the RFC stage?), and there is more to it than just video. The worlds largest browser base is still IE, and love it or hate it, it doesn't (currently) support HTML5 (announced that it will be supported in IE9, but that XP will not support IE9).

HTML5 video is basically embedded h.264 video files. Rev3 already has those. With some browser header scraping, users could be redirected to the appropriate page (HTML5 or Flash).

My vote? Yes ... but don't abandon Flash just yet, there are still too many people stuck in the 90's.

Who else remembers Macromedia introducing the world to flash in the mid 90's forever relegating the <blink> tag to being the SECOND most annoying thing on a web page?

[computoman]

As long as it will get us out of proprietary codecs. I am all for it.

[dark_shroud]

Not until HTML5 is a finalized.

IE8, Firefox, & Opera do not support HTML5 h.264 video.

If anything switch to Silverlight like Netflix uses.

[tokenuser]

Not until HTML5 is a finalized.

IE8, Firefox, & Opera do not support HTML5 h.264 video.

If anything switch to Silverlight like Netflix uses.Latest version of Opera supports HTML5 (http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/everything-you-need-to-know-about-html5-video-and-audio/), Firefox 3.5 added HTML5 support (https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox), and IE9 will support HTML5 (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9171338/Microsoft_unveils_IE9_public_preview).

Silverlight on the otherhand is proprietary, and only partially cross platform. We don't need to swap one proprietary plugin for another do we?

[daikun]

As long as it will get us out of proprietary codecs. I am all for it.

Um...

If I recall correctly, isn't H.264 (the driving force behind HTML5) a proprietary codec itself?

[tokenuser]

If I recall correctly, isn't H.264 (the driving force behind HTML5) a proprietary codec itself?Nope. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC) However it is still a patented process, so some royalties are applicable (as are the 802.11 wifi standards).

[magicmisles]

Part of me wants to say to wait for Flash to die but I think diving straight into HTML 5 could be good becuase it makes people upgrade and not just stick with what they know for the sake of it.

[xfuuey]

If anything switch to Silverlight like Netflix uses.

oh hell no. netflix uses sliverlight? i wouldn't know since i don't use netflix streaming, but now that i do know, i won't ever be getting netflix. sliverlight & linux just do not mix right (yes i know of moonlight) ... have encountered too many problems

[tokenuser]

oh hell no. netflix uses sliverlight?The fact that Netflix uses Silverlight (actually, since they also stream to settop boxes that are largely Linux /w Java based, they do/can use alternate methods) illustrates one of the biggest challenges to HTML5 - security.

HTML5 has none. The whole "On Demand" delivery model Netflix (and similar) have developed requires that the content being transmitted is secured. They have effectively implemented a streamed DRM wrapper. Netflix could switch to a pure HTML5 model tomorrow, but I suspect that their content providers (the movie studios) would have a fit.

So, its not a technical limitation, but a business one that identifies the biggest problem with HTML5 implementation.

[mrdoody55]

If it stops the error that a lot of us are getting, YES PLEASE!