Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Follow-up: Mozilla's stand on H.264 as ActiveX analogy

weblogs.mozillazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Follow-up: Mozilla's stand on H.264 as ActiveX analogy

#21

Post by geocar »

duskwuff wrote: post #14
bobbyi wrote: post #12

I don't see how the web browser is the right place for codecs to live. I have multiple web browsers and multiple media players installed. Do I need six copies of every codec?

And that's part of the problem too. The Mozilla devs have made it next to impossible to plug in a video decoder to replace the embedded one, so there's no way to just punt the decision to the OS by passing the video to DirectShow / QuickTime / gstreamer / etc. It's Theora or nothing.

Dirac stands a good chance of being added in the near future.

It seems it would be a weekend task to add a mozilla extension that replaces with embedded Microsoft Windows Media Player tags, and the necessary scripting hokum.

Re: Follow-up: Mozilla's stand on H.264 as ActiveX analogy

#22

Post by zppx »

duskwuff wrote: post #14
bobbyi wrote: post #12

I don't see how the web browser is the right place for codecs to live. I have multiple web browsers and multiple media players installed. Do I need six copies of every codec?

And that's part of the problem too. The Mozilla devs have made it next to impossible to plug in a video decoder to replace the embedded one, so there's no way to just punt the decision to the OS by passing the video to DirectShow / QuickTime / gstreamer / etc. It's Theora or nothing.

Does webkit have better support for other codecs?

Re: Follow-up: Mozilla's stand on H.264 as ActiveX analogy

#23

Post by duskwuff »

geocar wrote: post #21
duskwuff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's part of the problem too. The Mozilla devs have made it next to impossible to plug in a video decoder to replace the embedded one, so there's no way to just punt the decision to the OS by passing the video to DirectShow / QuickTime / gstreamer / etc. It's Theora or nothing.

Dirac stands a good chance of being added in the near future. It seems it would be a weekend task to add a mozilla extension that replaces with embedded Microsoft Windows Media Player tags, and the necessary scripting hokum.

Entirely doable, but doesn't expose the same scripting APIs that does. So, for instance, you will get a playable video in YouTube, but none of the YT buttons will work.

Re: Follow-up: Mozilla's stand on H.264 as ActiveX analogy

#24

Post by GHFigs »

halo wrote: post #18
blasdel wrote: post #3

How about a more relevant analogy to Flash? It has the same insecurities and platform-dependence plus being encumbered by the same patents (and more!), but Mozilla took exactly the opposite approach! Since 2004, Mozilla has had baked-in support for automatically installing Flash on the first encounter if the plugin is not found. A nice little yellow infobar pops down (a brilliant UI innovation), prompting you to inst…

Because Flash has 99%+ marketshare, whereas the H.264 video tag has <1% marketshare, so Mozilla are in a position to influence the latter but not the prior.

Most of the video delivered on the web today is in h.264, using Flash as a way of delivering it. This is why it's trivial for YouTube and Vimeo (and everybody else that currently uses Flash) to use h.264 in -- all of their video is already in h.264.

Re: Follow-up: Mozilla's stand on H.264 as ActiveX analogy

#25

Post by geocar »

duskwuff wrote: post #23
geocar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dirac stands a good chance of being added in the near future. It seems it would be a weekend task to add a mozilla extension that replaces with embedded Microsoft Windows Media Player tags, and the necessary scripting hokum.

Entirely doable, but doesn't expose the same scripting APIs that does. So, for instance, you will get a playable video in YouTube, but none of the YT buttons will work.

The YT buttons could be made to work because there is an analog for them, for example: document.getElementById('video').controls.pause(); does what you would expect.

See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd563945(VS.85).aspx

Re: Follow-up: Mozilla's stand on H.264 as ActiveX analogy

#26

Post by TheSOB88 »

sax wrote: post #6
blasdel wrote: post #3

How about a more relevant analogy to Flash? It has the same insecurities and platform-dependence plus being encumbered by the same patents (and more!), but Mozilla took exactly the opposite approach! Since 2004, Mozilla has had baked-in support for automatically installing Flash on the first encounter if the plugin is not found. A nice little yellow infobar pops down (a brilliant UI innovation), prompting you to inst…

I agree. They should be making the case for canvas, canvas-3d and SVG (SMIL) based animations with equal conviction, correct?

Hey, I wanted to meet up with you in Boulder (Qualcomm interview guy). I couldn't find your email, so I'm spamming all your comments, which is probably against the law. Please email me at ebisumaru@gmail.com, or read my longer comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1078343
Post reply on HN