Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > HTML5 <video> and <audio> support for several browsers

Reply
Thread Tools

HTML5 <video> and <audio> support for several browsers

 
 
idle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2010
On 07 Oct 2010 03:15:01 GMT, Lewis wrote in alt.html:

> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>
> idle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote in alt.html:

>
>>> I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
>>> that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
>>> <audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
>>> will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
>>> not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
>>> format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
>>> could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
>>> from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
>>> this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
>>> you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
>>> can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
>>> on the browser being checked.
>>>
>>> Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
>>> However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
>>> called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
>>> always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
>>> encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
>>> the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:
>>>
>>> Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
>>> Vegas Pro 9.0
>>> Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
>>> rate 29.97,
>>> field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
>>> frames 2,
>>> variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
>>> 768000, YUV;
>>> audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC
>>>
>>> The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
>>> <video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
>>> . You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
>>> to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
>>> you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
>>> different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
>>> http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
>>> this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
>>> video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
>>> distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
>>> video field.
>>>
>>> The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
>>> However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
>>> the background-color black for the division containing the video.
>>>
>>> Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
>>> to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
>>> Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
>>> are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
>>> you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
>>> provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
>>> gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
>>> force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.

>
>> So,
>> Checked and worked on Oct. 6, 2010, on latest versions of IE9-beta, Safari for Windows, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Seamonkey,
>> and Flock.
>> What's that user percentage going to work out to be?
>> http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

>
> Astroturf site from adobe?
>
> Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE ****ing 6,
> the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least since
> IE5.


You missed one.
I believe there may have been a 5.5 as well

--
Mama say, microsoft little bit gay.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
idle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2010
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:17:47 -0700, idle wrote in alt.html:

> On 07 Oct 2010 03:15:01 GMT, Lewis wrote in alt.html:
>
>> In message <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> idle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote in alt.html:

>>
>>>> I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
>>>> that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
>>>> <audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
>>>> will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
>>>> not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
>>>> format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
>>>> could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
>>>> from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
>>>> this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
>>>> you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
>>>> can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
>>>> on the browser being checked.
>>>>
>>>> Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
>>>> However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
>>>> called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
>>>> always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
>>>> encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
>>>> the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:
>>>>
>>>> Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
>>>> Vegas Pro 9.0
>>>> Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
>>>> rate 29.97,
>>>> field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
>>>> frames 2,
>>>> variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
>>>> 768000, YUV;
>>>> audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC
>>>>
>>>> The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
>>>> <video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
>>>> . You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
>>>> to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
>>>> you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
>>>> different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
>>>> http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
>>>> this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
>>>> video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
>>>> distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
>>>> video field.
>>>>
>>>> The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
>>>> However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
>>>> the background-color black for the division containing the video.
>>>>
>>>> Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
>>>> to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
>>>> Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
>>>> are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
>>>> you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
>>>> provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
>>>> gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
>>>> force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.

>>
>>> So,
>>> Checked and worked on Oct. 6, 2010, on latest versions of IE9-beta, Safari for Windows, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Seamonkey,
>>> and Flock.
>>> What's that user percentage going to work out to be?
>>> http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

>>
>> Astroturf site from adobe?
>>
>> Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE ****ing 6,
>> the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least since
>> IE5.

>
> You missed one.
> I believe there may have been a 5.5 as well


Follow up.
Have you seen this?
http://mrdoob.com/lab/javascript/effects/ie6/

Gotta use a html5 browser.

--
Double parked on the corner of Null and Void.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dylan Parry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-07-2010
idle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE ****ing
> > 6,
>> the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least
> > since
>> IE5.

>
> You missed one.
> I believe there may have been a 5.5 as well


From what I remember, IE5.5 was a huge improvement over IE5! Even IE6
was once good (ish), but anything a decade out of date is going to cause
hell for folks.

--
Dylan Parry
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phillip Jones
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2010
Neredbojias wrote:
> On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones<(E-Mail Removed)>
> glyphed:
>
>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/
>>>>>
>>>> this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:
>>>>
>>>> http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk
>>>
>>> If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are
>>> trying to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:
>>>
>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/
>>>
>>> ...or:
>>>
>>> http://www.neredbojias.net/
>>>

>>
>> Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors
>>
>> I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5
>>
>> But are the other legit errors
>>
>> http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV
>>
>> the second version using net looks good also but has these errors as
>> shown here:
>>
>> http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc
>>
>> again because its html5 you can discount the first error about
>> doctype.
>>
>> but are the other legit errors.

>
> I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
> pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
> (-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.) The results to
> which you link seem to show a problem with the&amp; construct somehow.
> I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.
>


well the validator is based on Tidy and SGML

see this:

http://screencast.com/t/6ThE4PESCa

and:

http://screencast.com/t/nmDFppiE

Just wondering.

Your sites look great though.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net/ mailto(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2010
On 07 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones <(E-Mail Removed)>
glyphed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>> On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones<(E-Mail Removed)>
>> glyphed:
>>
>>> Neredbojias wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/
>>>>>>
>>>>> this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk
>>>>
>>>> If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are
>>>> trying to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/
>>>>
>>>> ...or:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.neredbojias.net/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors
>>>
>>> I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5
>>>
>>> But are the other legit errors
>>>
>>> http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV
>>>
>>> the second version using net looks good also but has these errors
>>> as shown here:
>>>
>>> http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc
>>>
>>> again because its html5 you can discount the first error about
>>> doctype.
>>>
>>> but are the other legit errors.

>>
>> I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
>> pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
>> (-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.) The results
>> to which you link seem to show a problem with the&amp; construct
>> somehow. I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.
>>

>
> well the validator is based on Tidy and SGML
>
> see this:
>
> http://screencast.com/t/6ThE4PESCa
>
> and:
>
> http://screencast.com/t/nmDFppiE


Ah, I think I see; it is an HTML Tidy-thing. Alas, being completely
unfamiliar with Tidy, I can hardly comment on the efficacy of its
excretions. Perhaps someone who uses Tidy regularly and knows its
methods can enlighten us regarding the earlier output messages you
posted.

> Just wondering.
>
> Your sites look great though.


Thanks, and as I've intimated, I consider them error-free and
up-to-snuff in the html department.


--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-08-2010
On Oct 8, 12:02*am, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones <(E-Mail Removed)>
> glyphed:
>
>
>
> > Neredbojias wrote:
> >> On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones<(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> glyphed:

>
> >>> Neredbojias wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/

>
> >>>>> * * this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:

>
> >>>>>http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk

>
> >>>> If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are
> >>>> trying to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. *Try either:

>
> >>>>http://www.neredbojias.org/

>
> >>>> ...or:

>
> >>>>http://www.neredbojias.net/

>
> >>> Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors

>
> >>> I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5

>
> >>> But are the other legit errors

>
> >>>http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV

>
> >>> the second version using net looks good also but has these errors
> >>> as shown here:

>
> >>>http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc

>
> >>> again because its html5 you can discount the first error about
> >>> doctype.

>
> >>> but are the other legit errors.

>
> >> I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
> >> pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
> >> (-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.) *The results
> >> to which you link seem to show a problem with the&amp; construct
> >> somehow. I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.

>
> > well the validator *is based on Tidy and SGML

>
> > see this:

>
> >http://screencast.com/t/6ThE4PESCa

>
> > and:

>
> >http://screencast.com/t/nmDFppiE

>
> Ah, I think I see; it is an HTML Tidy-thing. *Alas, being completely
> unfamiliar with Tidy, I can hardly comment on the efficacy of its
> excretions. *Perhaps someone who uses Tidy regularly and knows its
> methods can enlighten us regarding the earlier output messages you
> posted.
>
> > Just wondering.

>
> > Your sites look great though.

>
> Thanks, and as I've intimated, I consider them error-free and
> up-to-snuff in the html department.
>
> --
> Neredbojias
>
> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/


The only worthwhile validator for html, xhtml, etc is that of the w3c
which sets the standards. Since it is open source, other sites
sometimes offer about the same thing. The Doctype is all important for
validation, because it allows selection of the proper validator for
the code you use. If you go to the w3c validator at http://validator.w3.org/
you will find that both of his Neredbojias' links validate fully as
html5. Likewise, so does my link that started this thread. My link got
extra junk added after html somewhere down this thread as indicated by
the blue underline extending past the html. You either must copy the
link only through html or go back to my first post to use the link.
This sort of thing sometimes happens with multiple quotes on Usenet,
so watch for blue underlines that extend past the final .html or other
extension used.

Now Tidy is not a validator, but rather a code cleanup program. It can
be reached through the w3c valaditor, but has nothing to do with the
w3c or their validators. Some people may find Tidy useful for
housekeeping like cleanups of their web page. However, if if you use
Tidy, the code suggestions it makes do not make the page valid in some
cases. For example, validate the entry page to a major site such as
http://www.apple.com and select to also use Tidy. In the case of the
Apple site, you find it is html5 with a few errors. Tidy rewrites the
page. Now copy the page code suggested by Tidy, and select to validate
using direct input of the Tidy page into a text box available. You
will find that the Tidy page does not validate. When possible get you
page to validate first. Then, if you wish, see what Tidy gives you.
You may or may not find something in the Tidy code that will reduce
the lines of code, etc. In some cases, use of Tidy before the page is
valid may help find errors.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HTML5 in Firefox and other browsers Maurice Helwig HTML 1 08-24-2012 03:13 AM
Re: HTML5 browser support Jukka K. Korpela HTML 14 03-23-2012 05:24 AM
Re: HTML5 browser support idle HTML 4 03-20-2012 10:57 PM
Re: HTML5 browser support cwdjrxyz HTML 0 03-20-2012 08:51 PM
Example of HTML5 to be viewed on 4 commom browsers cwdjrxyz HTML 2 09-23-2010 05:07 PM



Advertisments