On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:24:31AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Additionnaly, the "modern" www tends to force the user to have a script-able
> www browser, even though many www sites could provide their services with a
> noscript www browser through a cleverly crafted main www portal or a dedicated
> noscript www portal on the side of the main (with all bells and whistles) www
> portal.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ^
> |
> That's where the real fight is
>
> For instance, youtube could provide a noscript www portal with <video> and/or
> <audio> html elements. EZ and reasonable to implement even for inexperienced
> coders around the globe. But no. You _must_ have a script-able www browser to
> enjoy youtube (the terms of use even forbid users to employ anything else in
> order to watch/listen to a video/audio stream). I have to admit, html needs a
> little extension to <video>/<audio> in order to support split video/audio
> streams. Basically, we would need a simple html-ed "DASH" manifest. But
> vp[98]/opus high/med/low qualities video/audio combined streams should be
> enough in most cases. (remainging cases would be handled with the standard
> "download then view" way).
Actually, I thought again on this html-ed "DASH" manifest. It would be useless.
Just need a "DASH manifest" mime type in the <video> or <audio> elements and
let the media infrastructure handle it.
Youtube has no more excuses.
--
Sylvain
Received on Mon May 02 2016 - 01:10:10 CEST