Wednesday 3 June 2009

HTML 5 vs Microsoft

I see some enthusiasm about HTML 5 and its ability in particular to free web users from Flash for video. HTML 5 specifies a standard way to stream video to the browser, meaning you don't need to download a plugin to play video, and websites don't need to provide a Flash player for it either.

The problem, as I see it, is chicken and egg with YouTube and Internet Explorer. If IE supports HTML 5, but YouTube doesn't, nobody will notice, so Microsoft has very little incentive to implement that part.

Conversely, if YouTube switches to HTML 5 while IE remains on the older standard, suddenly the biggest video site on the net seems "broken" to most people. They will blame YouTube, not IE. A hybrid site might be the way forward, serving HTML 5 if your browser can handle it, but that costs more to support and still gives no incentive to Microsoft to change.

Mokalus of Borg

PS - I suppose they need a hybrid site that serves a warning for older browsers.
PPS - Or perhaps they just need to take HD content to HTML 5. I don't know.

No comments: