This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HTML video article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most of the material and sources seem to be from 2010 and highly out of date. References to Youtube should now be updated, since they have switched to HTML5 player by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.94.215 ( talk) 14:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The AV1 codec of Alliance for Open Media Video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:43F:8352:71B6:EDBA:ACD5:54AD ( talk) 17:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
That "controls" part needs to be elaborated on. THANKS -- 202.130.181.213 ( talk) 11:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The article should mention how video relates to object, an older tag that can also be used to embed video or other data. For example, it should describe their implementations' similarities and differences, their limitations relative to each other (what can video do that object can't, and vice versa?), whether the HTML5 editor(s) were aware of object's ability to show video through e.g.
<object data="movie.ogv" type="video/ogg"><!-- type may be overridden by HTTP Content-Type [1] -->
<param name="controls" value="controls" /><!-- hypothetical param that may depend on player -->
your browser does not support the object tag, or lacks a player for Ogg video
</object>
<!-- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.3 -->
(if a default player exists), and whether the HTML5 editor(s) intend(s) video to complement or replace object for its uses. -- an odd name 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone? :( -- an odd name 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Open source can have many meanings, and open source licences can carry restrictions. Do we know that the proposed Google open source release of the On2 codecs will make them free? Stephen B Streater ( talk) 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This news source specifically mentions royalty free as opposed to open source. It also covers the background to this issue. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 09:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
E. g.: "Any format supported by QuickTime on OS X."
Does this mean: Safari supports any QT format on OS X, or any format that QT itself supports on OS X? -- 91.11.218.75 ( talk) 23:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It means "Safari will play any format that the QuickTime multimedia framework will play", specifically Ogg Theora when XiphQT is installed.-- 129.241.30.66 ( talk) 09:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is confused about the patent situation on Theora. See http://theora.org/faq/#24 Hsivonen ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Except for (the minority of) browsers that have builtin codecs, the support for multimedia formats is not a question of browser, so don't present it as such. In these cases, the information is only normative. Don't mix normative with factual.
Examples: Konqueror seemingly supports Theora and not H.264, although the note correctly says Phonon can support any format. It's just that 99% of all Konqueror users use GNU/Linux, which tends to have support for ogg formats as a baseline. Safari and IE9 seemingly does not support Theora, but as we know from Safari, it's not a browser issue. Little is known about IE9 yet, but if it uses the native Windows multimedia framework, it too should play Theora when the directshow filters are installed unless it refuses to. My point is: It's not a fact.-- 129.241.30.66 ( talk) 10:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be some sort of metric we can use to determine whether a browser supports HTML5 video or not... I propose the following set of conditions for the browsers.
These conditions should be noted in some form in the table. Either way I believe the table would be more organized if the readers can simply have a 'yes', 'no' or 'in development build' answer for the browser they want to check on. -- 112.203.100.68 ( talk) 11:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's not oversimplify:
I think we should have "yes" when it supports with the default configurations, and "depends" when it relies on third party codecs. Or perhaps we need another possible category ("plugins-available"). For instance, IE9 will apparently allow VP8 *if codecs are installed*, while simply refusing to add Theora support. Theora's "no" is different from VP8's "no". Luiscubal ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
WOW, never thought that my "Explanation of the tables2" template would ever get in more article except the comparisons of layout engines! good work for you all! I give my go to Gyrobos opinion at the moment! mabdul 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we now limit the number of browsers to be represented in the table to only the top five as suggested before? I just noticed that the bottom three browsers -- Konqueror, Epiphany, and Origyn -- rely on the multimedia framework of the operating system. This trait can be summarized and is in fact now represented in comments beneath the table with the mentions of Phonon and Gstreamer respectively. I suggest that comment be expanded to include Konqueror and Epiphany as examples of browsers that use Phonon and Gstreamer frameworks for HTML5 video, and make a new entry for Origyn in the comment as an example of a browser that use FFmpeg framework for HTML5 video. -- 112.203.100.68 ( talk) 07:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the current table is bogus in the following ways:
The reason why I don't just do the edits is that I expect Gyrobo would just revert me just like before when he reverted my edit and effectively claimed pluggable codecs for GStreamer and QuickTime weren't analogous. Hsivonen ( talk) 11:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The format support of these browsers is set at compile time. They may use codecs and libraries internally, but they are not pluggable.
Browser | Supported formats |
---|---|
Mozilla Firefox | Theora, ( WebM planned for version 4) |
Opera for Windows and Mac OS X | Theora, WebM |
Google Chrome / Chromium | Theora, WebM |
Origyn Web Browser | Theora, WebM, H.264 in version 1.9 for MorphOS (uses FFmpeg internally). |
The format support of these browsers is solely dictated by their backend, and their backend permits codecs to be plugged in and out.
Browser | Multimedia backend |
---|---|
Internet Explorer | DirectShow |
Safari | QuickTime |
Konqueror | Phonon |
Opera for GNU/Linux and BSD | Gstreamer |
Epiphany | Gstreamer |
BOLT browser | default external media player |
Multimedia backend | Theora | WebM | H.264 |
---|---|---|---|
DirectShow | with Opencodecs (Xiph's DirectShow filters) | with Windows | |
QuickTime | with XiphQT | with Mac OS X | |
Gstreamer | with gstreamer-plugins-base | with gstreamer-plugins-bad | with gstreamer-plugins-bad |
Phonon | Phonon uses either Gstreamer or Xine as backend. Phonon backends using Mplayer and VLC are in development. |
This is the exact reality. Why decompress reality into a big matrix of not-so-exact information plus notes & exceptions, like trying to reach an incompetent audience? -- 129.241.30.137 ( talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In the browser support table, note 1 says: "Indirectly possible if Google Chrome Frame is installed". This note applies to Theora and is accurate as far as I know. However, regarding VP8 support, only reference to installing the codec on the system is made. Won't Google Chrome Frame support VP8 just like it supports Theora? Or are we waiting for citations that this is indeed possible? As for note 3, I propose changing it to "Indirectly possible if both IE Tab and Google Chrome Frame are installed". Small difference, but makes it clearer that the "and" is intentional. Luiscubal ( talk) 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
shouln't we crerate also a seperate page for html5 audio? or rename this article to html5 media and create two red.? I've create one for html5 audio to the comparison, but I'm not really happy about this state! mabdul 12:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Technically any format debate which applies to video also applies to audio because AAC is also a patented codec which must be licensed for usage. Same goes for MP3 - it's not a royalty free codec either. The fact that nobody is debating audio codecs in the context of HTML5 just goes to show how little the people who are debating these matters actually understand about the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.16.99 ( talk) 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is widely used, and has good speed, compression, [...] and video quality
Any sources for this statement other than Apple and TUAW?
Please don't argumentum ad hominem me for not being logged in either.
90.201.84.1 ( talk) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it only me, or these two statements are not compatible? In my reading, the first one seems to suggest that H.264 is not covered by patents.
Maxferrario ( talk) 13:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about the location of the video. In our example...
<video src="movie.webm" poster="movie.jpg" controls>
This is fallback text to display if the browser
does not support the video element.
</video>
... it would appear that movie.webm is in the same folder as the webpage that I'm viewing. Doesn't this cause a security concern, whereby anyone could download the file as opposed to just watching it? Is there a way to prevent such an action? (Same question for the <audio> tag.)
This seems relevant when discussing this technology, because I cannot imagine that a site who streams audio/video would want those files to be downloaded. So in the case of <audio> and <video>, what prevents a user from stealing the files themselves? — Timneu22 · talk 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a little confused as to what to do. Multiple sources ( [2] [3] [4]) are reporting that Google Chrome version 10 does not have support for H.264. In other words, in a recently released Google Chrome, H.264 support was removed. However, when I run the html5 test and the microsoft video format support page in google chrome 10 on my home machine (linux or windows) I see support for Html5. I have a hard time going with the sources when I see such clear evidence to the contrary. Suggestions? ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This article only focuses on the debate around video codecs and formats. What's sorely missing is an overview which lists features that explicitly ARE supported and features that are missing but present in proprietary web app runtimes such as Silverlight, Flash and Java. For example: RTSP straming, HTTP adaptive streaming, live streaming, DRM protection, client side playlists, custom transport/format extensibility - these are all examples of standard media features that are missing from the HTML5 spec. Why is nobody talking about these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.16.99 ( talk) 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
For all practical purposes, the formats that are of interest in the context of HTML5 video are WebM, Theora and H.264. Other formats aren't really used in practice because of worse interoperability than the three formats specifically mentioned. I think the "Others" column in the table doesn't provide any real value to the reader and removing the column from the table would make the article clearer. Hsivonen ( talk) 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"...many web browsers have Adobe's Flash Player pre-installed...". That's a bit misleading. Most browsers don't have the player pre-installed. I've reworded based on the page for Adobe Flash Player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptcd ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Several editors (generally IPs) constantly add to the table the "X planned" (namely h264 support for Firefox and h264 removal for Chrome). As no dates are settled, such additions boldly violate WP:CRYSTAL. Please note only the events that already occurred. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
If <video> becomes like <img> and say everyone quit using Flash; would end users have a "digital right" to be able to stop an HTML5 video advertisement from downloading with a context menu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.215.174 ( talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list the latest releases of each browser on each OS? It doesn't really seem all that relevant to the topic to me, but must require constant updating. Also, I think Safari for Windows should be removed, as this is no longer supported by Apple. Are Web, Konqueror and Chromium really relevant to the debate? The market share of these three, even combined, is tiny. MatthewHaywood ( talk) 11:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The Safari Mac OS X row appears to be completely bogus information that is meant to apply somewhere else. The manual installation note for instance, or the lack of support in the h.264 column referencing a WebM citation. Dasil003 ( talk) 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
FireFox 3.5+ on Windows 7 with installed h.264 plugin support h.264 video well, including most common method to play (tested on http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/video/basics/)
Mozilla will add H264 for Firefox OS and Fennec: "Android 4/4.1: hardware and software decoder support for h.264 video" https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/17.0/releasenotes/ In futur, it could available on Mac OS, Windows 7 and Linux (with gtreamer-bad-plugin): https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799318 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.71.89 ( talk) 13:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Its been possible to enable h.264 in firefox on linux since version 14. You just need to build it with --enable-gstreamer. But the official builds have not enabled it yet. 194.36.2.117 ( talk) 14:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add unsupported OS with any web browser which are not real present on market, like FireFox on unsupported OS X 10.6 with market share below 0.01% in this combination. On market are hundreds web browsers and thousands in combination with OS versions, but most of them have unmeasurable market share. Goal of this table is not imagine every possible combination of web browser and OS version, but only combination with appreciable share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.64.202 ( talk) 19:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@ LiberatorG: changed the table to say that HEVC is not supported on Android, saying "HEVC in Android Browser HTML5 video does not work for me. Ref is for OS support, not browser. Please cite and specify browser version if available." But the ref https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=460703 was indeed for the browser; it says "Playing plain HEVC mp4 files in Chrome/Android/Nexus5 works fine, e.g. this one: http://www.bitmovin.net/hevc/720p.mp4".
I tested on my own Nexus 4 phone, and it plays directly linked HEVC files as well as HEVC files inside a HTML5 video tag. Test case: https://www.thuejk.dk/hevc.html
While I acknowledge that I don't have a really good reference for hevc working on android, nor know which versions it works on, the current blanket "no" is obviously incorrect. Thue ( talk) 09:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit (was undone and then redone by me).
I don't agree that we should list plugins in this table. If we did, we could fill all fields for the Internet Explorer, Safari, Konqueror and Web browsers, with "Via a plugin", since (for example) the VLC plugin supports all listed video formats.
OpenCodecs (for Internet Explorer on Windows) and Xiph QuickTime Components (for Safari on macOS) are a bit different, since they provide the codecs at the OS-level, but maybe they should be removed too.
Lonaowna ( talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HTML5 video. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder, why people think that VP9 in MP4 is not supported? Why need to undo my edit of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.138.62 ( talk) 09:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HTML video article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most of the material and sources seem to be from 2010 and highly out of date. References to Youtube should now be updated, since they have switched to HTML5 player by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.94.215 ( talk) 14:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The AV1 codec of Alliance for Open Media Video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:810:43F:8352:71B6:EDBA:ACD5:54AD ( talk) 17:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
That "controls" part needs to be elaborated on. THANKS -- 202.130.181.213 ( talk) 11:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The article should mention how video relates to object, an older tag that can also be used to embed video or other data. For example, it should describe their implementations' similarities and differences, their limitations relative to each other (what can video do that object can't, and vice versa?), whether the HTML5 editor(s) were aware of object's ability to show video through e.g.
<object data="movie.ogv" type="video/ogg"><!-- type may be overridden by HTTP Content-Type [1] -->
<param name="controls" value="controls" /><!-- hypothetical param that may depend on player -->
your browser does not support the object tag, or lacks a player for Ogg video
</object>
<!-- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#h-13.3 -->
(if a default player exists), and whether the HTML5 editor(s) intend(s) video to complement or replace object for its uses. -- an odd name 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyone? :( -- an odd name 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Open source can have many meanings, and open source licences can carry restrictions. Do we know that the proposed Google open source release of the On2 codecs will make them free? Stephen B Streater ( talk) 17:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
This news source specifically mentions royalty free as opposed to open source. It also covers the background to this issue. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 09:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
E. g.: "Any format supported by QuickTime on OS X."
Does this mean: Safari supports any QT format on OS X, or any format that QT itself supports on OS X? -- 91.11.218.75 ( talk) 23:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It means "Safari will play any format that the QuickTime multimedia framework will play", specifically Ogg Theora when XiphQT is installed.-- 129.241.30.66 ( talk) 09:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is confused about the patent situation on Theora. See http://theora.org/faq/#24 Hsivonen ( talk) 12:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Except for (the minority of) browsers that have builtin codecs, the support for multimedia formats is not a question of browser, so don't present it as such. In these cases, the information is only normative. Don't mix normative with factual.
Examples: Konqueror seemingly supports Theora and not H.264, although the note correctly says Phonon can support any format. It's just that 99% of all Konqueror users use GNU/Linux, which tends to have support for ogg formats as a baseline. Safari and IE9 seemingly does not support Theora, but as we know from Safari, it's not a browser issue. Little is known about IE9 yet, but if it uses the native Windows multimedia framework, it too should play Theora when the directshow filters are installed unless it refuses to. My point is: It's not a fact.-- 129.241.30.66 ( talk) 10:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be some sort of metric we can use to determine whether a browser supports HTML5 video or not... I propose the following set of conditions for the browsers.
These conditions should be noted in some form in the table. Either way I believe the table would be more organized if the readers can simply have a 'yes', 'no' or 'in development build' answer for the browser they want to check on. -- 112.203.100.68 ( talk) 11:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's not oversimplify:
I think we should have "yes" when it supports with the default configurations, and "depends" when it relies on third party codecs. Or perhaps we need another possible category ("plugins-available"). For instance, IE9 will apparently allow VP8 *if codecs are installed*, while simply refusing to add Theora support. Theora's "no" is different from VP8's "no". Luiscubal ( talk) 22:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
WOW, never thought that my "Explanation of the tables2" template would ever get in more article except the comparisons of layout engines! good work for you all! I give my go to Gyrobos opinion at the moment! mabdul 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we now limit the number of browsers to be represented in the table to only the top five as suggested before? I just noticed that the bottom three browsers -- Konqueror, Epiphany, and Origyn -- rely on the multimedia framework of the operating system. This trait can be summarized and is in fact now represented in comments beneath the table with the mentions of Phonon and Gstreamer respectively. I suggest that comment be expanded to include Konqueror and Epiphany as examples of browsers that use Phonon and Gstreamer frameworks for HTML5 video, and make a new entry for Origyn in the comment as an example of a browser that use FFmpeg framework for HTML5 video. -- 112.203.100.68 ( talk) 07:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the current table is bogus in the following ways:
The reason why I don't just do the edits is that I expect Gyrobo would just revert me just like before when he reverted my edit and effectively claimed pluggable codecs for GStreamer and QuickTime weren't analogous. Hsivonen ( talk) 11:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The format support of these browsers is set at compile time. They may use codecs and libraries internally, but they are not pluggable.
Browser | Supported formats |
---|---|
Mozilla Firefox | Theora, ( WebM planned for version 4) |
Opera for Windows and Mac OS X | Theora, WebM |
Google Chrome / Chromium | Theora, WebM |
Origyn Web Browser | Theora, WebM, H.264 in version 1.9 for MorphOS (uses FFmpeg internally). |
The format support of these browsers is solely dictated by their backend, and their backend permits codecs to be plugged in and out.
Browser | Multimedia backend |
---|---|
Internet Explorer | DirectShow |
Safari | QuickTime |
Konqueror | Phonon |
Opera for GNU/Linux and BSD | Gstreamer |
Epiphany | Gstreamer |
BOLT browser | default external media player |
Multimedia backend | Theora | WebM | H.264 |
---|---|---|---|
DirectShow | with Opencodecs (Xiph's DirectShow filters) | with Windows | |
QuickTime | with XiphQT | with Mac OS X | |
Gstreamer | with gstreamer-plugins-base | with gstreamer-plugins-bad | with gstreamer-plugins-bad |
Phonon | Phonon uses either Gstreamer or Xine as backend. Phonon backends using Mplayer and VLC are in development. |
This is the exact reality. Why decompress reality into a big matrix of not-so-exact information plus notes & exceptions, like trying to reach an incompetent audience? -- 129.241.30.137 ( talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
In the browser support table, note 1 says: "Indirectly possible if Google Chrome Frame is installed". This note applies to Theora and is accurate as far as I know. However, regarding VP8 support, only reference to installing the codec on the system is made. Won't Google Chrome Frame support VP8 just like it supports Theora? Or are we waiting for citations that this is indeed possible? As for note 3, I propose changing it to "Indirectly possible if both IE Tab and Google Chrome Frame are installed". Small difference, but makes it clearer that the "and" is intentional. Luiscubal ( talk) 18:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
shouln't we crerate also a seperate page for html5 audio? or rename this article to html5 media and create two red.? I've create one for html5 audio to the comparison, but I'm not really happy about this state! mabdul 12:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Technically any format debate which applies to video also applies to audio because AAC is also a patented codec which must be licensed for usage. Same goes for MP3 - it's not a royalty free codec either. The fact that nobody is debating audio codecs in the context of HTML5 just goes to show how little the people who are debating these matters actually understand about the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.16.99 ( talk) 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is widely used, and has good speed, compression, [...] and video quality
Any sources for this statement other than Apple and TUAW?
Please don't argumentum ad hominem me for not being logged in either.
90.201.84.1 ( talk) 18:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it only me, or these two statements are not compatible? In my reading, the first one seems to suggest that H.264 is not covered by patents.
Maxferrario ( talk) 13:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about the location of the video. In our example...
<video src="movie.webm" poster="movie.jpg" controls>
This is fallback text to display if the browser
does not support the video element.
</video>
... it would appear that movie.webm is in the same folder as the webpage that I'm viewing. Doesn't this cause a security concern, whereby anyone could download the file as opposed to just watching it? Is there a way to prevent such an action? (Same question for the <audio> tag.)
This seems relevant when discussing this technology, because I cannot imagine that a site who streams audio/video would want those files to be downloaded. So in the case of <audio> and <video>, what prevents a user from stealing the files themselves? — Timneu22 · talk 14:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a little confused as to what to do. Multiple sources ( [2] [3] [4]) are reporting that Google Chrome version 10 does not have support for H.264. In other words, in a recently released Google Chrome, H.264 support was removed. However, when I run the html5 test and the microsoft video format support page in google chrome 10 on my home machine (linux or windows) I see support for Html5. I have a hard time going with the sources when I see such clear evidence to the contrary. Suggestions? ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This article only focuses on the debate around video codecs and formats. What's sorely missing is an overview which lists features that explicitly ARE supported and features that are missing but present in proprietary web app runtimes such as Silverlight, Flash and Java. For example: RTSP straming, HTTP adaptive streaming, live streaming, DRM protection, client side playlists, custom transport/format extensibility - these are all examples of standard media features that are missing from the HTML5 spec. Why is nobody talking about these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.16.99 ( talk) 21:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
For all practical purposes, the formats that are of interest in the context of HTML5 video are WebM, Theora and H.264. Other formats aren't really used in practice because of worse interoperability than the three formats specifically mentioned. I think the "Others" column in the table doesn't provide any real value to the reader and removing the column from the table would make the article clearer. Hsivonen ( talk) 15:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
"...many web browsers have Adobe's Flash Player pre-installed...". That's a bit misleading. Most browsers don't have the player pre-installed. I've reworded based on the page for Adobe Flash Player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laptcd ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Several editors (generally IPs) constantly add to the table the "X planned" (namely h264 support for Firefox and h264 removal for Chrome). As no dates are settled, such additions boldly violate WP:CRYSTAL. Please note only the events that already occurred. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 13:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
If <video> becomes like <img> and say everyone quit using Flash; would end users have a "digital right" to be able to stop an HTML5 video advertisement from downloading with a context menu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.215.174 ( talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list the latest releases of each browser on each OS? It doesn't really seem all that relevant to the topic to me, but must require constant updating. Also, I think Safari for Windows should be removed, as this is no longer supported by Apple. Are Web, Konqueror and Chromium really relevant to the debate? The market share of these three, even combined, is tiny. MatthewHaywood ( talk) 11:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The Safari Mac OS X row appears to be completely bogus information that is meant to apply somewhere else. The manual installation note for instance, or the lack of support in the h.264 column referencing a WebM citation. Dasil003 ( talk) 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
FireFox 3.5+ on Windows 7 with installed h.264 plugin support h.264 video well, including most common method to play (tested on http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/video/basics/)
Mozilla will add H264 for Firefox OS and Fennec: "Android 4/4.1: hardware and software decoder support for h.264 video" https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/17.0/releasenotes/ In futur, it could available on Mac OS, Windows 7 and Linux (with gtreamer-bad-plugin): https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/ https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=794282 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=799318 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.71.89 ( talk) 13:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Its been possible to enable h.264 in firefox on linux since version 14. You just need to build it with --enable-gstreamer. But the official builds have not enabled it yet. 194.36.2.117 ( talk) 14:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Please do not add unsupported OS with any web browser which are not real present on market, like FireFox on unsupported OS X 10.6 with market share below 0.01% in this combination. On market are hundreds web browsers and thousands in combination with OS versions, but most of them have unmeasurable market share. Goal of this table is not imagine every possible combination of web browser and OS version, but only combination with appreciable share. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.64.202 ( talk) 19:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@ LiberatorG: changed the table to say that HEVC is not supported on Android, saying "HEVC in Android Browser HTML5 video does not work for me. Ref is for OS support, not browser. Please cite and specify browser version if available." But the ref https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=460703 was indeed for the browser; it says "Playing plain HEVC mp4 files in Chrome/Android/Nexus5 works fine, e.g. this one: http://www.bitmovin.net/hevc/720p.mp4".
I tested on my own Nexus 4 phone, and it plays directly linked HEVC files as well as HEVC files inside a HTML5 video tag. Test case: https://www.thuejk.dk/hevc.html
While I acknowledge that I don't have a really good reference for hevc working on android, nor know which versions it works on, the current blanket "no" is obviously incorrect. Thue ( talk) 09:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit (was undone and then redone by me).
I don't agree that we should list plugins in this table. If we did, we could fill all fields for the Internet Explorer, Safari, Konqueror and Web browsers, with "Via a plugin", since (for example) the VLC plugin supports all listed video formats.
OpenCodecs (for Internet Explorer on Windows) and Xiph QuickTime Components (for Safari on macOS) are a bit different, since they provide the codecs at the OS-level, but maybe they should be removed too.
Lonaowna ( talk) 10:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on HTML5 video. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder, why people think that VP9 in MP4 is not supported? Why need to undo my edit of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.138.62 ( talk) 09:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)