I very much like this :) Lower CPU, doesn't slow down the page, and the UI responds much faster.
Downsides: no fullscreen (yet), and doesn't skip-to-and-buffer from the middle (loads a frame, and waits until load-from-beginning catches up). As I typically watch all of a video if it's on Youtube, though, that's easily acceptable.
There seem to be plenty of little UI glitches to: like not being able to click to position the audio level (have to drag the knob instead). Obviously these should be easily fixable, but I'd like them to fix them.
Is it just me or does HTML 5 video support seem like a Google plan to leverage their video dominance into browser market share at the expense of Microsoft?
Not that I'm complaining, the sooner Trident goes down in flames, the better.
The danger is, I suppose, if they where leveraging any of their content dominance to promote integration between browser and content and therefore lock-in.
Firefox 3.6 includes "HTML 5" in the list of features, supposedly. Does this include video support? I don't know.
I wonder if youtube is restricting browser versions. The idea of vendor lock-in for an open standard (HTML 5) is stupid, though. The reason more browsers aren't on the list, I gather, is that they don't have [adequate] support.
6 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 26.1 ms ] threadDownsides: no fullscreen (yet), and doesn't skip-to-and-buffer from the middle (loads a frame, and waits until load-from-beginning catches up). As I typically watch all of a video if it's on Youtube, though, that's easily acceptable.
Not that I'm complaining, the sooner Trident goes down in flames, the better.
I wonder if youtube is restricting browser versions. The idea of vendor lock-in for an open standard (HTML 5) is stupid, though. The reason more browsers aren't on the list, I gather, is that they don't have [adequate] support.