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

Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#71

Post by maggit »

pohl wrote: post #52
latortuga wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a result of his rather drawn out explanation, however, it appears as though he can achieve the result he desires, just not as simply as he would like and in a manner he'd rather make fun of than use. I understand complaining that about the lack of a feature that everyone seems to agree is decent and desirable, not to mention spelled out in the specification but it is not relevant to that specific discussion to com…

I don't see anywhere in the article or in the title where he says that you can't do X. One needs to, again, sweep the author's qualifier "effectively" under the rug in order to construct that straw-man. The title says that you can't effectively do X using Y. I don't see how the fact that one can do X by instead using A and B in combination with Y invalidates that statement, especially with all the hype built up aroun…

Sorry, I am not a native English speaker, but to me it seems the author claims that using Y, you effectively can't do X. This, in contrast to your formulation, means that the effect of certain properties of Y is that X is impossible to achieve.

My interpretation agrees with the Webster's dictionary's (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/EFFECTIVELY) first definition of "effectively": "in effect : virtually ". (There are other ways of killing the project more effectively)

I agree with you in the sense that the author goes on rambling about how he is unable to achieve X as effectively ("in an effective manner ") as he would like, but this is not the claim he has made in the title.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#72

Post by blasdel »

thristian wrote: post #59
wmf wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could take their mountain of cash and pay the licensing fee like Chrome does.

Firefox could pay the licensing fee for the copies of Firefox they distribute themselves, but they can't pay the licensing fee for unknown downstream users - the various Linux distros who build their own Firefox builds, projects like Seamonkey and Camino, any random people who want to use the Gecko source for something. Mozilla is pretty committed to making sure that anyone who uses Gecko has access to all the HTML f…

The patents (and thus the license fees) only apply to object code -- distributing the source code ain't infringing shit.

Mozilla already has compile flags that generate binaries other people aren't allowed to distribute -- the logo and trademarks are decidedly non-free, hence IceWeasel.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#73

Post by DougBTX »

maggit wrote: post #71
pohl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anywhere in the article or in the title where he says that you can't do X. One needs to, again, sweep the author's qualifier "effectively" under the rug in order to construct that straw-man. The title says that you can't effectively do X using Y. I don't see how the fact that one can do X by instead using A and B in combination with Y invalidates that statement, especially with all the hype built up aroun…

Sorry, I am not a native English speaker, but to me it seems the author claims that using Y, you effectively can't do X. This, in contrast to your formulation, means that the effect of certain properties of Y is that X is impossible to achieve. My interpretation agrees with the Webster's dictionary's ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/EFFECTIVELY ) first definition of "effectively": "in effect : virtually ".…

So, your complaint is that he used

  x is effectively unusable
Instead of

  x is unusable effectively
As a native speaker, I would note that English is a flexible language, that the second phrase in a heading would sound odd, and therefore let the first phrase stand for either saying as the meanings are so close together anyway.

As far as markup is concerned, he used an img tag, not a video tag, so he couldn't use the video tag in the markup, at which point either meaning is perfectly valid.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#74

Post by pohl »

maggit wrote: post #71
pohl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anywhere in the article or in the title where he says that you can't do X. One needs to, again, sweep the author's qualifier "effectively" under the rug in order to construct that straw-man. The title says that you can't effectively do X using Y. I don't see how the fact that one can do X by instead using A and B in combination with Y invalidates that statement, especially with all the hype built up aroun…

Sorry, I am not a native English speaker, but to me it seems the author claims that using Y, you effectively can't do X. This, in contrast to your formulation, means that the effect of certain properties of Y is that X is impossible to achieve. My interpretation agrees with the Webster's dictionary's ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/EFFECTIVELY ) first definition of "effectively": "in effect : virtually ".…

This, in contrast to your formulation, means that the effect of certain properties of Y is that X is impossible to achieve.

I can see how it might appear that way, but take note of the word "virtually" in the Webster's definition. It's an unfortunate word, because it undermines the absolute strength of the word it modifies...which, in your case, would be the word "impossible" (had you not dropped the word "virtually" from your paraphrasing, that is).

Here's another example that shows someone else using the word in the same way that this author does. His system is copying files very slowly, and while technically his system is able to copy files, he feels it can't effectively be used for that purpose, even though a more patient person might disagree:

http://www.vistax64.com/vista-performance-maintenance/120356...

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#75

Post by didroe »

dasil003 wrote: post #39
bphogan wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But see that's kinda stinky cos it's not semantic. You're not embedding the video element in the document so it can describe the content. It would be really cool if the js somehow could remove the video element or something and add it back in... but I dunno how possible that is.

The semantic part isn't even what really bothers me. I'm more concerned about requiring javascript for something that shouldn't need it.

Is it possible to start playback on the HTML5 video element without Javascript? I thought it was a requirement.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#76

Post by sgk284 »

po wrote: post #63
sgk284 wrote: post #62

The argument seems kind of silly. In 1993 when people started using images in their content, I'm sure people were making similar points. "My browser shouldn't download an image until I tell it to, it uses my bandwidth!" or "Don't download the image until I click it." And the web would be a different place if things were kept that way. Now I'm not saying that the HTML5 video spec is perfect, but let me just provide a…

You would change your mind in a hurry when your bandwidth bill comes in, or you run over your caps. That's basically what Gruber is saying: it's just not economically possible for people to embed video this way.

Right, but I'm sure that will change with time. The economic issue is a temporary problem that will go away, just as it did with images.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#77

Post by dasil003 »

didroe wrote: post #75
dasil003 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The semantic part isn't even what really bothers me. I'm more concerned about requiring javascript for something that shouldn't need it.

Is it possible to start playback on the HTML5 video element without Javascript? I thought it was a requirement.

I just assumed... why would they do that?

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#78

Post by jdowdell »

DarkShikari wrote: post #27
aw3c2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your constant Theora bashing is so wrong. H264 is patented, patents are bad, Theora seems the best alternative. Get over it.

When did I bash Theora? There's a lot wrong with Theora, but it's irrelevant to the discussion: what matters is what people actually use . If today it came up that there was a big patent on JPEG, would you propose that the entire web stop using JPEG tomorrow? No matter how good or bad Theora is, the internet will not simply drop the existing standard formats and switch. It doesn't work that way. This is also why brow…

System-level video decoders were used in Macromedia Director during multimedia and early Internet days, but developers found it didn't work very well... you had to choose an architecture(s), then had to test for its presence and do version-detection, then handle the installation/support process for audience members who needed it.

"Use the system's video" sounds attractive, but just pushes the problem down the stack. Your mileage may differ, but I've seen people try it before....

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#79

Post by po »

sgk284 wrote: post #76
po wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would change your mind in a hurry when your bandwidth bill comes in, or you run over your caps. That's basically what Gruber is saying: it's just not economically possible for people to embed video this way.

Right, but I'm sure that will change with time. The economic issue is a temporary problem that will go away, just as it did with images.

You're absolutely right. Temporary, but real pain right now. Unusable in today's economy.

Re: Why the HTML5 ‘Video’ Element Is Effectively Unusable

#80

Post by nfriedly »

TeHCrAzY wrote: post #56
wmf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you cannot tell the client how many seconds to buffer before playback. This completely breaks the buffering model inherent in modern video compression systems My understanding is that HTML5 browsers will attempt to buffer as much as possible; is there any reason you'd want less buffering?

When you don't want the video to start, when you only want to buffer the minimum required for smooth playback, to avoid wasted bandwidth when the user inevitablly closes the window (see youtube, they do this now), a myriad of reasons. Flexability allows inovation.

Does anybody else ever get problems from youtube doing this? I'm on a 30mb connection and videos still pause to buffer sometimes when I'm watching in HD.
Post reply on HN