最近許多人反映 firefox 9 + flashplayer 11 很不穩

不禁讓我好奇各家瀏覽器對 html5 的支援到什麼程度

剛好在 Linuxtoy 看到一篇報告

The State Of HTML5 Video

以我看來，html5 要取代 flashplayer，還早得很

flash 相容性要好得多

因為，使用 flash 只要放棄 8% 的 market share

使用 html5 則要放棄 32%

而且 html5 還有格式問題

所以使用 html5 要放棄的市場應該大於 32%

以支援度來算

WebM + Vorbis: Chrome + Firefox + Opera = 24% + 23% + 2% = 49%
MP4 + AAC: Chrome + Safari + iPad/iPhone + Android = 24% + 4% + 4% = 32%
MP4 + MP3: IE9 + Chrome + Safari + iPad/iPhone = 9% + 24% + 4% = 37%
Flash: IE6-8 + IE9 + Chrome + Firefox + Opera + Safari + Android = 28% + 9% + 24% + 23% + 2% + 4% + 2% = 92%

html5 請繼續加油！

小朋友最近用 firefox 玩小二館裏面的 flash game 的確容易當掉，用 IE9 就 ok

angry birds + chrome + vista  + acer aspire 5738zg 會出現聲音斷掉的情形，用 firefox or IE 就 ok

angry birds 是用 html5 ? 

用 firebug 去找可以看到 Angry Birds Chrome 用的是 html5 canvas

這邊有找到一些說明

Android 2.3 已支援 WebM，IE6/7/8/9 與 Safari 都有方法支援 WebM

自 high 一點的算法，WebM + Vorbis 支援度可達 92%！！ 

有在 HTC flyer android 2.3 試過，記得好像是不支援 WebM

沒試過，看到報導說可以

Android 2.3.3 正式支援 WebM / VP8 囉！一般 Android 手機使用者...默...

說實在的，google chrome 故意拿掉 html5 的 h264 支援 (flash 仍然支援 h264)，然後幫 ie9 加入 WebM 支援，這招很厲害

html5 h264 支援度馬上減少 24%，html5 WebM 增加 9% XD

IE9(requires WebM MF components)

今天才發現，不知道是什麼 google 產品，在 C:\Program Files (x86)\Google\Update 幫我安裝了 GoogleUpdate.exe

GoogleUpdate 似乎自動幫我下載並安裝了 install_webmmf_0.25.0.0.exe (我竟然完全不知道！真邪惡！)

所以現在我的 IE9 已經支援 WebM 了

chrome play youtube 時有時候會用 html5，終於開始真的有人在用 html5 了 XD

我在Firefox上安裝了QuickJava的plug-in來控制什麼時候使用JS, Flash, Java等等。上一次明明就關掉了Flash的使用，結果youtube的頁面居然還跑了起來，讓我大吃一驚，才知道原來在youtube已經不需要 flash player了。不過我有注意到，如果使用html5的話，youtube上的連續播放清單還沒辦法用就是了。

Idealism vs. pragmatism: Mozilla debates supporting H.264 video playback

The popular H.264 format is widely viewed as the best technical choice for encoding Internet video, but its underlying compression technologies are covered by a wide range of patents. This has raised the question of whether its appropriate for a standards-based Web technology to rely on a patent-encumbered video format that requires publishers and software implementors to pay licensing fees.

The ubiquity of the Web and its strength as a platform for innovation are partly due to the royalty-free licensing model that the W3C mandated for Web standards. As Mozilla and other parties have argued over the past few years, the use of a patent-encumbered video format is antithetical to the principles of the open Web. Critics of the H.264 licensing model have advocated the use of other video codecs, causing a split in the browser landscape.

Apple and Microsoft both support H.264, while Mozilla and Opera oppose the use of patented codecs. Google previously favored H.264, but shifted its position after opening VP8, a codec that the search giant has put forth as a viable alternative to H.264 for Internet video. Google vowed to remove H.264 support from its Chrome Web browser at some undisclosed future date, but has not yet done so.

The lack of universal support for a single codec has proved problematic because it compels content creators to either encode their video in multiple formats or fail to support large segments of their audience. Building consensus around a single codec would remove one of the biggest remaining impediments to widespread adoption of the HTML5 video element. A change in course

Mozilla's strong commitment to the open Web made it seem as though the organization's position was intractable. Mozilla's resolve on the matter appears to have cracked, however, as the organization confronts the challenge of bolstering its credibility as a mobile platform provider.

Andreas Gal, Mozilla's director of research, announced on a public mailing list today that he wants to proceed with a plan that would enable H.264 decoding on Mozilla's Boot2Gecko (B2G) mobile operating system. The proposed change would allow the video element in Mozilla's HTML rendering engine to rely on codecs that are supplied by the underlying operating system or dedicated video hardware.

In addition to enabling H.264 playback in B2G, the proposed patch would also enable it in the Android version of mobile Firefox. Gal further expressed support for eventually taking similar measures in the desktop version of Firefox, with the stipulation that it would only be practical if the implementation ensured support for virtually all users.

Modern versions of the Windows operating system expose an H.264 codec to third-party software, but Windows XP does not. Gal said that he'd favor supporting H.264 in Firefox on the desktop if a means could be identified for ensuring that XP users (which represent a very significant portion of Firefox's audience) aren't left out. This is a radical change of policy for Mozilla, one that could have significant ramifications for the future of video on the Web.

Despite the pragmatic concession, Gal says that Mozilla's ideological position in favor of open codecs remains unchanged. The organization is still hopeful that an unencumbered codec will eventually prevail.

"We will support decoding any video/audio format that is supported by existing decoders present on the system, including H.264 and MP3. There is really no justification to stop our users from using system decoders already on the device, so we will not filter any formats," he wrote. "I don't think this bug significantly changes our position on open video. We will continue to promote and support open codecs, but when and where existing codecs are already installed and licensed on devices we will make use of them in order to provide people with the best possible experience."

The option of using system-provided codecs is an obvious solution that would allow Firefox to play H.264 video without having to ship the code itself. We've discussed (and endorsed) this approach in some of our previous coverage, but Mozilla has historically rejected it on ideological grounds. In the past, Mozilla's position was that it didn't want to take any steps that would legitimize or encourage the use of a patent-encumbered codec. The organization is no longer maintaining that argument.

...

"The state of HTML5 video started off from a bad place, and to be fair still isn't in a good place. So reassessing Mozilla stance is not unreasonable. But I think if Mozilla is going to do an about-face on open video standards (and it is an about-face), then there should be some serious discussion about it. Certainly more than than a few terse words saying it's hopeless and obvious," he wrote. "We spent a lot of time and made a lot of blog posts about why H.264 was bad for the web. Leaving those who advocated for us suddenly high-and-dry doesn't feel like the right thing to do."

...

Mozilla 以前對開放標準一直很龜毛，正因為它的堅持，所以一直以來還蠻信任這個組織的，不過，現在居然要支援 H.264 了，支援是小事，但挪開這顆絆腳石，H.264 的聲勢肯定大幅上漲，這件事所導致的效應是與 Mozilla 支援開放標準的理念嚴重衝突的，而且也等於是打了死忠支持者一巴掌，不知道是不是花大錢出手機，怕不支援 H.264 賣不出去？我猜最後應該不可能直接支援 H.264，頂多不阻止瀏覽器使用系統的 decoder。

youtube 的 html5 是用 webm 嗎？

youtube 為何不看見自家的 chrome 時自動改用 html5 的 page？

可能是需要兩倍 disk 存放 .flv .webm 的關係？我覺得可以從 popular 的 videos 先做。

打開 html5 功能後，還是常常用 flashplayer 播放，可能影片沒轉檔

youtube 的 html5 是用 webm 沒錯

原本linux 上的 chrome play YouTube 遇到廣告常常會變成空白頁，看起來似乎是 flash 的問題。

最近用 linux 看 YouTube 好像都正常了，原本以為 chrome 內建的 flash 修正了空白頁的問題。按右鍵看一下，原來是全部改成 html5 了。

或許驅使 Google 把 YouTube 改成 html5 的動力來自自己的 Android chrome 不支援 flash。

這似乎看廣告有關。

我自己上傳在 Youtube 的影片原本並無設定為顯示廣告，在開啟 youtube  html5 的條件下是有 webm 格式可播放的。但在開啟顯示廣告之後，就被迫以 flash 方式播放了。