When the HTML5 states were first proposed, I went through a careful exercise to make sure that they were reasonably delivery-technology neutral, i.e. that they applied equally well if say RTSP/RTP was used, some kind of dynamic streaming, simple HTTP, and so on.
I am concerned that we all tend to assume that HTML==HTTP, but the source URL for the media might have any protocol type, and the HTML attributes, states etc. should apply (or clearly not apply) to anything. Assuming only HTTP, in the markup, is not a good direction. On Jan 21, 2011, at 9:22 , Zachary Ozer wrote: > We never make any promises about when we'll get something into an > official release, but I think we'd start playing around with it in our > development version once a reference implementation was publicly > available. > -- > Zachary Ozer > Developer, LongTail Video > > w: longtailvideo.com • e: z...@longtailvideo.com • p: 212.244.0140 • > f: 212.656.1335 > JW Player | Bits on the Run | AdSolution > > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Roger Hågensen <resca...@emsai.net> wrote: >> On 2011-01-20 19:16, Zachary Ozer wrote: >>> >>> == New Proposal == >> >> I like this. It seems you laid out everything to ensure a balanced buffer, >> kinda like a moving window buffer which I pointed out earlier. >> So as far as I can see, your proposal looks pretty solid, unless there are >> any implementation snafus. (looks at the Chrome, Safari, Opera, Firefox guys >> in the list (hmm, where's the IE guys?)) >> I really like the way you described the "state3", and I think that would be >> my personal preference for playback myself. I assume JW player would be very >> quick at supporting/using it? >> >> -- >> Roger "Rescator" Hågensen. >> Freelancer - http://www.EmSai.net/ >> >> David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
