On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 03:35:22 +0200, Robert O'Callahan
<rob...@ocallahan.org> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Philip Jagenstedt
<phil...@opera.com>wrote:
the point is simply that calling canPlayType without out a codecs list
or
with specific codecs, you can learn exactly what is supported and not
out of
the container formats and codecs you are interested in, without the
need for
the strange "probably"/"maybe"/"" API.
I think it would be somewhat counterintuitive for
canPlayType("video/ogg")
to return true, but canPlayType("video/ogg; codecs=dirac") to return
false.
Well I disagree of course, because having canPlayType("video/ogg") mean
anything else than "can I demux Ogg streams" is pointless.
Quoting myself from
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2008-November/017212.html
(replies from Ian)
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
When asking about application/ogg, this could mean 2 things:
1. "can I demux Ogg streams?"
2. "can I demux Ogg streams and decode unknown codecs?"
It's the second (and thus the answer can only ever be "maybe" or "no").
[snip]
Unless the codecs parameter is to be made mandatory I think that spec
should explicitly make it such that the question asked is 1. In either
case we will end up there because 2 is not a meaningful question anduser
agents will make untruthful answers in attempts to stay compatiblewith
unknown and future content (which might be supported by installingnew
codecs in the media framework without upgrading the browser).
Currently the spec says we should interpret canPlayType("video/ogg") as
"can I demux Ogg streams and decode unknown codecs?", which is a pointless
question. If we seriously believe that people need the level of control
provided by the 3-state answer, just let them make several queries to ask
the precise questions they want to ask.
--
Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
