And I don't like it.

What does it mean?

It means that with the new "video" tag in html 5 the browsers become to be the player and if you have a capable system (video and graphics drivers, codecs, etc) all responsibility falls on the browsers so it would be common to see crashes on browsers, meaning the lost of caches and corruption on config data.

In my opinion, this is not a good idea.

It's good because you don't need to dig with a lot of code to embed multimedia, but, in the other hand, I find more suitable to handle multimedia with an external application via plug-ins.

Using plug-ins as flash is not a good choice, but if they develop as they should and make them as efficient as DivxWebPlayer, there is no need to use the browser as a player and lets more control in the client side, this means, the final user.

And as a side effect, we should ask... are going to let this happen common third application developers as Adobe or Real?


http://www.w3schools.com/html5/tag_video.asp

http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2010/01/introducing-youtube-html5-supported.html

I see this though:
"... browsers that support both the tag in HTML5 and the h.264 video codec.
These include:
* Google Chrome
* Apple Safari (version 4+)
* Microsoft Internet Explorer with Chrome Frame installed (Get Chrome Frame)"

Ironic it's not exactly x-browser except biased towards their own

--
★ e n c o d e r X ★

Yep, that is another thing.

They talk the benefits of this, that html5 is more open but... then, you find that if the browsers doesn't include the codec... we are in the same scenario.

Funny it's planned to convert browsers in a player, but then, they don't support all codecs :-?

You told about that browsers, but Opera, for example, bets for Theora (if I'm not wrong) and mozilla tends to think on other codecs...

How better in the way we are now, or, at least, if they go for open, an open plugin standard for any browser and start a fight for codecs...