Am 16.07.2015 um 17:44 schrieb Johannes Meixner:
Hello,
On Jul 16 14:57 Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote (excerpt):
This thread started about something which could replace Flash which basically means "in-browser-viewing-capabilities" and therefore HTML5.
Perhaps I confuse something here but see my other mail where I wrote that for me (Tumbleweed without Flash) YouTube worked but not http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/
I tried a video on the YouTube home page that just worked. As far as I understand what others have posted here this is because YouTube uses HTML5.
But in contrast videos on http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/ did not work for me and here Firefox showed a popup that it got an *.mp4 file and asked me what it should do with it (that "Open with" versus "Save File" popup). From that I guess (I don't know about Firefox internals) that this time no HTML5 was used.
Just out of curiosity I was just failing to find a video on the site above but only photos. Do you have any direct url probably which shows that?
What I like to tell is that it seems HTML5 alone could be not sufficient to replace Flash.
It should (for videos obviously not necessarily for games ;-))). But it's mainly the website owner who has the authority to make it work or fail depending on which media format he offers and if he insists on MSE or/and DRM and stuff. Flash is able to stream different media. Browsers with HTML5 are more limited and all support a different subset of the codecs. So in worst case a content owner has to provide more than one video and probably provide a H.264 and a WebM video so all the browsers find something to play. The problem is that many website owners do not move enough. I understand that Apple users have almost no issues to use the web even without Flash. This somehow implies that content providers have done their homework on the HTML5 side almost done. But as soon there is something non-Apple arriving they insist on Flash again apparently. At least this is my feeling. So the sooner Flash dies completely the better for everyone.
I mean replacing Flash from an user experience point of view, not from a technical point of view.
Again for videos the main responsibility is with the server side. Yes, it might be more complicated because they now have to deal with different browsers with different feature sets instead of one Flash player. But they already started to do that with Apple. So it's certainly not impossible. There just needs to be enough pressure from the consumer side.
The H.264 (many times referred to MP4 while that is a very rough match only) which is part of the HTML5 standard is not built in to Firefox because of patent concerns. But Firefox can and will use it if system GStreamer installation provides the decoding capabilities.
Do I understand it correctly that I got that popup in Firefox because Firefox could not find a H.264 codec?
Hard to say without finding this specific example. The website code can react on your browser capabilities and if it does not find H.264 supported it could offer an MP4 as download. I'm not sure why, because the chances are low that another app on your system can play it if your browser does not but anyway.
If yes, Firefox hides that information from the user which could be crucial at least for some users to proceed.
The popup only reads: ------------------------------------------------------------- Opening i248rqwejb_dskfz_16473657_oe85.mp4
You have chosen to open: i248rqwejb_dskfz_16473657_oe85.mp4 which is: MP4 file (12.3 MB) from: http://video3.spiegel.de
What should Firefox do with this file? (*) Open with [Browse...] ( ) Save File [ ] Do this automatically for files like this from now on.
[Cancel] [OK] -------------------------------------------------------------
If Firefox would have additionally shown its internal knowledge why it shows me that popup (e.g. because it needs a H.264 codec but cannot find one) it would have helped to get an idea what the actual reason is why it does not "just work" in this case.
The browser does not have that knowledge. The browser either sees a <video> element with a codec specification it can play and then play it or it will get a "download request" for any kind of file. The website decides what the browser should do.
Addendum 1: Regarding H.264 versus MP4 very rough match: It is Firefox that tells me that it is a "MP4 file". I only used what Firefox had stated what this thingy is. It would have already helped if Firefox had shown it as "H.264 or MPEG-4 Part 10, Advanced Video Coding (MPEG-4 AVC)" video coding format.
It doesn't know. The http reply just tells the browser the mimetype. Firefox than matches the mime-type it got with the system mime database and shows the result (shared-mime-info).
Addendum 2: Meanwhile I can play H.264/MPEG-4 AVC videos via /usr/bin/vlc but Firefox still shows that popup which means there is a difference between "no codec for H.264/MPEG-4 AVC installed" and "Firefox cannot find a codec for H.264/MPEG-4 AVC".
What does the video section of html5test.com tells you? You probably don't have MPEG-4 ASP support but you should have the others. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org