HTML5 <video> and <audio> support for several browsers

Discussion in 'HTML' started by cwdjrxyz, Oct 4, 2010.

  1. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
    that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
    <audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
    will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
    not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
    format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
    could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
    from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
    this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
    you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
    can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
    on the browser being checked.

    Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
    However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
    called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
    always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
    encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
    the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:

    Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
    Vegas Pro 9.0
    Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
    rate 29.97,
    field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
    frames 2,
    variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
    768000, YUV;
    audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC

    The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
    <video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
    .. You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
    to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
    you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
    different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
    http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
    this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
    video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
    distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
    video field.

    The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
    However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
    the background-color black for the division containing the video.

    Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
    to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
    Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
    are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
    you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
    provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
    gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
    force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.
    cwdjrxyz, Oct 4, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Oct 3, 7:48 pm, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > I now have a page athttp://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
    > that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
    > <audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
    > will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
    > not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
    > format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
    > could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
    > from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
    > this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
    > you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
    > can check what of html5 each browser supports by going tohttp://www.html5test.com
    > on the browser being checked.
    >
    > Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
    > However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
    > called  AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
    > always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
    > encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
    > the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:
    >
    > Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
    > Vegas Pro 9.0
    > Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
    > rate 29.97,
    > field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
    > frames 2,
    > variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps -  2000000, average bps -
    > 768000, YUV;
    > audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC
    >
    > The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
    > <video> the video becomes distorted. Seehttp://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
    > . You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
    > to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
    > you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
    > different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See  the screen shot athttp://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png. It turns out that
    > this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
    > video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
    > distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
    > video field.
    >
    > The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
    > However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
    > the background-color black for the division containing the video.
    >
    > Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
    > to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
    > Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
    > are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
    > you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
    > provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
    > gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
    > force IE7 and 8 to support <video>


    See my new video page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix4.html
    ..Since I have only IE9 beta on my newer computer with 64 bit Vista
    and IE7 on my old computer with XP, I would like a report on how the
    new page views on IE8. I would like to know if you are offered
    another type of video (flash) there as it is on IE7 if you have flash
    installed. The top version of Windows 7 sells for over US$300, and
    other versions are less expensive, but far from cheap. I doubt if many
    will upgrade from XP to Windows7 just so they can install IE9 to be
    able to view html5 properly, especially since most of the more popular
    browsers are free and can be used on XP, and some have supported much
    of html5 for some time.

    * ReplyReply
    * Quote.
    cwdjrxyz, Oct 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. cwdjrxyz

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 05 Oct 2010, the varmint cwdjrxyz <> glyphed:

    > See my new video page at
    > http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix4.html .Since I have
    > only IE9 beta on my newer computer with 64 bit Vista and IE7 on my
    > old computer with XP, I would like a report on how the new page views
    > on IE8. I would like to know if you are offered another type of video
    > (flash) there as it is on IE7 if you have flash installed.


    Yes, you are. (I uninstalled ie9 beta.) The sound was a little
    throaty, though; everybody sounded like a frog...

    > The top
    > version of Windows 7 sells for over US$300, and other versions are
    > less expensive, but far from cheap. I doubt if many will upgrade from
    > XP to Windows7 just so they can install IE9 to be able to view html5
    > properly, especially since most of the more popular browsers are free
    > and can be used on XP, and some have supported much of html5 for some
    > time.


    I like win7, and knowing ahead of time how it is, I'd probably pay the
    $300. However, I didn't have to; I got a new computer with it on it.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Oct 6, 2010
    #3
  4. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Oct 6, 3:04 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > On 05 Oct 2010, the varmint cwdjrxyz <> glyphed:
    >
    > > See my new video page at
    > >http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix4.html.Since I have
    > > only  IE9 beta on my newer computer with 64 bit Vista and IE7 on my
    > > old computer with XP, I would like a report on how the new page views
    > > on IE8. I would like to know if you are offered another type of video
    > > (flash) there as it is on IE7 if you have flash installed.

    >
    > Yes, you are.  (I uninstalled ie9 beta.)  The sound was a little
    > throaty, though; everybody sounded like a frog...


    Yes, the sound is somewhat distorted. It is mono and likely was from
    an optical 35 mm film track. I had better luck restoring the film
    color - it was a bit faded. However it does sound as if the audio is a
    bit worse than what I started with. Perhaps I had the audio volume a
    bit too high on conversion to flv/swf. You can adjust the frequency
    response etc, but it is very difficult to impossible to remove
    distortion.

    > > The top
    > > version of Windows 7 sells for over US$300, and other versions are
    > > less expensive, but far from cheap. I doubt if many will upgrade from
    > > XP to Windows7 just so they can install IE9 to be able to view html5
    > > properly, especially since most of the more popular browsers are free
    > > and can be used on XP, and some have supported much of html5 for some
    > > time.

    >
    > I like win7, and knowing ahead of time how it is, I'd probably pay the
    > $300.  However, I didn't have to; I got a new computer with it on it.
    >
    > --
    > Neredbojias
    >
    > http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/
    cwdjrxyz, Oct 6, 2010
    #4
  5. cwdjrxyz wrote:
    > On Oct 6, 3:04 am, Neredbojias<> wrote:
    >> On 05 Oct 2010, the varmint cwdjrxyz<> glyphed:
    >>
    >>> See my new video page at
    >>> http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix4.html.Since I have
    >>> only IE9 beta on my newer computer with 64 bit Vista and IE7 on my
    >>> old computer with XP, I would like a report on how the new page views
    >>> on IE8. I would like to know if you are offered another type of video
    >>> (flash) there as it is on IE7 if you have flash installed.

    >>
    >> Yes, you are. (I uninstalled ie9 beta.) The sound was a little
    >> throaty, though; everybody sounded like a frog...

    >
    > Yes, the sound is somewhat distorted. It is mono and likely was from
    > an optical 35 mm film track. I had better luck restoring the film
    > color - it was a bit faded. However it does sound as if the audio is a
    > bit worse than what I started with. Perhaps I had the audio volume a
    > bit too high on conversion to flv/swf. You can adjust the frequency
    > response etc, but it is very difficult to impossible to remove
    > distortion.
    >
    >>> The top
    >>> version of Windows 7 sells for over US$300, and other versions are
    >>> less expensive, but far from cheap. I doubt if many will upgrade from
    >>> XP to Windows7 just so they can install IE9 to be able to view html5
    >>> properly, especially since most of the more popular browsers are free
    >>> and can be used on XP, and some have supported much of html5 for some
    >>> time.

    >>
    >> I like win7, and knowing ahead of time how it is, I'd probably pay the
    >> $300. However, I didn't have to; I got a new computer with it on it.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Neredbojias
    >>
    >> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/

    >

    this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:

    http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk

    --
    Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
    http://www.phillipmjones.net/ mailto:p
    Phillip Jones, Oct 6, 2010
    #5
  6. cwdjrxyz

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones <>
    glyphed:

    > cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >> On Oct 6, 3:04 am, Neredbojias<> wrote:
    >>> On 05 Oct 2010, the varmint cwdjrxyz<>
    >>> glyphed:
    >>>
    >>>> See my new video page at
    >>>> http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix4.html.Since I have
    >>>> only IE9 beta on my newer computer with 64 bit Vista and IE7 on
    >>>> my old computer with XP, I would like a report on how the new page
    >>>> views on IE8. I would like to know if you are offered another type
    >>>> of video (flash) there as it is on IE7 if you have flash
    >>>> installed.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, you are. (I uninstalled ie9 beta.) The sound was a little
    >>> throaty, though; everybody sounded like a frog...

    >>
    >> Yes, the sound is somewhat distorted. It is mono and likely was from
    >> an optical 35 mm film track. I had better luck restoring the film
    >> color - it was a bit faded. However it does sound as if the audio is
    >> a bit worse than what I started with. Perhaps I had the audio volume
    >> a bit too high on conversion to flv/swf. You can adjust the
    >> frequency response etc, but it is very difficult to impossible to
    >> remove distortion.
    >>
    >>>> The top
    >>>> version of Windows 7 sells for over US$300, and other versions are
    >>>> less expensive, but far from cheap. I doubt if many will upgrade
    >>>> from XP to Windows7 just so they can install IE9 to be able to
    >>>> view html5 properly, especially since most of the more popular
    >>>> browsers are free and can be used on XP, and some have supported
    >>>> much of html5 for some time.
    >>>
    >>> I like win7, and knowing ahead of time how it is, I'd probably pay
    >>> the $300. However, I didn't have to; I got a new computer with it
    >>> on it.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Neredbojias
    >>>
    >>> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/

    >>

    > this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:
    >
    > http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk


    If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are trying
    to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:

    http://www.neredbojias.org/

    ....or:

    http://www.neredbojias.net/


    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Oct 6, 2010
    #6
  7. cwdjrxyz

    idle Guest

    On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote in alt.html:

    > I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
    > that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
    > <audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
    > will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
    > not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
    > format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
    > could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
    > from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
    > this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
    > you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
    > can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
    > on the browser being checked.
    >
    > Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
    > However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
    > called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
    > always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
    > encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
    > the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:
    >
    > Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
    > Vegas Pro 9.0
    > Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
    > rate 29.97,
    > field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
    > frames 2,
    > variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
    > 768000, YUV;
    > audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC
    >
    > The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
    > <video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
    > . You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
    > to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
    > you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
    > different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
    > http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
    > this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
    > video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
    > distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
    > video field.
    >
    > The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
    > However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
    > the background-color black for the division containing the video.
    >
    > Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
    > to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
    > Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
    > are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
    > you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
    > provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
    > gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
    > force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.


    So,
    Checked and worked on Oct. 6, 2010, on latest versions of IE9-beta, Safari for Windows, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Seamonkey,
    and Flock.
    What's that user percentage going to work out to be?
    http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

    Hmmmmm.

    --
    I started life with nothing in my head and still have most of it left.
    idle, Oct 6, 2010
    #7
  8. Neredbojias wrote:
    > On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones<>
    > glyphed:
    >
    >> cwdjrxyz wrote:
    >>> On Oct 6, 3:04 am, Neredbojias<> wrote:
    >>>> On 05 Oct 2010, the varmint cwdjrxyz<>
    >>>> glyphed:
    >>>>
    >>>>> See my new video page at
    >>>>> http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix4.html.Since I have
    >>>>> only IE9 beta on my newer computer with 64 bit Vista and IE7 on
    >>>>> my old computer with XP, I would like a report on how the new page
    >>>>> views on IE8. I would like to know if you are offered another type
    >>>>> of video (flash) there as it is on IE7 if you have flash
    >>>>> installed.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, you are. (I uninstalled ie9 beta.) The sound was a little
    >>>> throaty, though; everybody sounded like a frog...
    >>>
    >>> Yes, the sound is somewhat distorted. It is mono and likely was from
    >>> an optical 35 mm film track. I had better luck restoring the film
    >>> color - it was a bit faded. However it does sound as if the audio is
    >>> a bit worse than what I started with. Perhaps I had the audio volume
    >>> a bit too high on conversion to flv/swf. You can adjust the
    >>> frequency response etc, but it is very difficult to impossible to
    >>> remove distortion.
    >>>
    >>>>> The top
    >>>>> version of Windows 7 sells for over US$300, and other versions are
    >>>>> less expensive, but far from cheap. I doubt if many will upgrade
    >>>>> from XP to Windows7 just so they can install IE9 to be able to
    >>>>> view html5 properly, especially since most of the more popular
    >>>>> browsers are free and can be used on XP, and some have supported
    >>>>> much of html5 for some time.
    >>>>
    >>>> I like win7, and knowing ahead of time how it is, I'd probably pay
    >>>> the $300. However, I didn't have to; I got a new computer with it
    >>>> on it.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Neredbojias
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/
    >>>

    >> this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:
    >>
    >> http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk

    >
    > If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are trying
    > to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:
    >
    > http://www.neredbojias.org/
    >
    > ...or:
    >
    > http://www.neredbojias.net/
    >


    Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors

    I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5

    But are the other legit errors

    http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV

    the second version using net looks good also but has these errors as
    shown here:

    http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc

    again because its html5 you can discount the first error about doctype.

    but are the other legit errors.

    --
    Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
    http://www.phillipmjones.net/ mailto:p
    Phillip Jones, Oct 7, 2010
    #8
  9. cwdjrxyz

    Lewis Guest

    In message <>
    idle <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote in alt.html:


    >> I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
    >> that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
    >> <audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
    >> will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
    >> not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
    >> format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
    >> could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
    >> from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
    >> this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
    >> you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
    >> can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
    >> on the browser being checked.
    >>
    >> Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
    >> However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
    >> called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
    >> always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
    >> encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
    >> the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:
    >>
    >> Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
    >> Vegas Pro 9.0
    >> Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
    >> rate 29.97,
    >> field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
    >> frames 2,
    >> variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
    >> 768000, YUV;
    >> audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC
    >>
    >> The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
    >> <video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
    >> . You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
    >> to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
    >> you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
    >> different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
    >> http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
    >> this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
    >> video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
    >> distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
    >> video field.
    >>
    >> The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
    >> However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
    >> the background-color black for the division containing the video.
    >>
    >> Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
    >> to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
    >> Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
    >> are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
    >> you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
    >> provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
    >> gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
    >> force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.


    > So,
    > Checked and worked on Oct. 6, 2010, on latest versions of IE9-beta, Safari for Windows, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Seamonkey,
    > and Flock.
    > What's that user percentage going to work out to be?
    > http://ishtml5readyyet.com/


    Astroturf site from adobe?

    Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE fucking 6,
    the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least since
    IE5.



    --
    SOME SHADOWS ARE SO LONG, THEY ARRIVE BEFORE THE LIGHT. --Soul Music
    Lewis, Oct 7, 2010
    #9
  10. cwdjrxyz

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones <>
    glyphed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/
    >>>>
    >>> this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:
    >>>
    >>> http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk

    >>
    >> If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are
    >> trying to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:
    >>
    >> http://www.neredbojias.org/
    >>
    >> ...or:
    >>
    >> http://www.neredbojias.net/
    >>

    >
    > Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors
    >
    > I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5
    >
    > But are the other legit errors
    >
    > http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV
    >
    > the second version using net looks good also but has these errors as
    > shown here:
    >
    > http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc
    >
    > again because its html5 you can discount the first error about
    > doctype.
    >
    > but are the other legit errors.


    I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
    pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
    (-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.) The results to
    which you link seem to show a problem with the &amp; construct somehow.
    I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.

    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Oct 7, 2010
    #10
  11. cwdjrxyz

    idle Guest

    On 07 Oct 2010 03:15:01 GMT, Lewis wrote in alt.html:

    > In message <>
    > idle <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote in alt.html:

    >
    >>> I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
    >>> that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
    >>> <audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
    >>> will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
    >>> not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
    >>> format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
    >>> could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
    >>> from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
    >>> this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
    >>> you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
    >>> can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
    >>> on the browser being checked.
    >>>
    >>> Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
    >>> However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
    >>> called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
    >>> always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
    >>> encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
    >>> the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:
    >>>
    >>> Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
    >>> Vegas Pro 9.0
    >>> Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
    >>> rate 29.97,
    >>> field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
    >>> frames 2,
    >>> variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
    >>> 768000, YUV;
    >>> audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC
    >>>
    >>> The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
    >>> <video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
    >>> . You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
    >>> to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
    >>> you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
    >>> different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
    >>> http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
    >>> this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
    >>> video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
    >>> distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
    >>> video field.
    >>>
    >>> The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
    >>> However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
    >>> the background-color black for the division containing the video.
    >>>
    >>> Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
    >>> to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
    >>> Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
    >>> are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
    >>> you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
    >>> provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
    >>> gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
    >>> force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.

    >
    >> So,
    >> Checked and worked on Oct. 6, 2010, on latest versions of IE9-beta, Safari for Windows, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Seamonkey,
    >> and Flock.
    >> What's that user percentage going to work out to be?
    >> http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

    >
    > Astroturf site from adobe?
    >
    > Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE fucking 6,
    > the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least since
    > IE5.


    You missed one.
    I believe there may have been a 5.5 as well ;)

    --
    Mama say, microsoft little bit gay.
    idle, Oct 7, 2010
    #11
  12. cwdjrxyz

    idle Guest

    On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:17:47 -0700, idle wrote in alt.html:

    > On 07 Oct 2010 03:15:01 GMT, Lewis wrote in alt.html:
    >
    >> In message <>
    >> idle <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 17:48:07 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote in alt.html:

    >>
    >>>> I now have a page at http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/layoutDemoWithIEfix3.html
    >>>> that uses valid html5 code and gives examples of use of <video> and
    >>>> <audio> of html5 for media only. In the first place, most browsers now
    >>>> will offer only one or two house video or audio formats, and these are
    >>>> not the same in various browsers. Thus you have to provide at least 3
    >>>> format choices for video and audio for all 7 of the browsers that
    >>>> could use <video> and <audio>. I use a Microsoft conditional script
    >>>> from Google to force IE 7 & 8 to render much more of html5, but alas
    >>>> this script will not force them to render <video> and <audio>. Thus
    >>>> you must have IE9 beta to see the <video> and <audio> media on IE. You
    >>>> can check what of html5 each browser supports by going to http://www.html5test.com
    >>>> on the browser being checked.
    >>>>
    >>>> Starting with IE9 beta, the audio is a snap because it can use mp3.
    >>>> However video was a lot of trouble. You need a special mp4 file
    >>>> called AVC with codec H264, and an encoder for this format is not
    >>>> always easy to find free or at a low price. There is/was a low cost
    >>>> encoder that will do this, but I have forgotten the name of it. I used
    >>>> the Sony Pro Vegas 9 to encode set up as:
    >>>>
    >>>> Source: 5 Mbps .mpg (mpeg2)
    >>>> Vegas Pro 9.0
    >>>> Saved as type MainConcept AVC/AAC (.mp4), width 640, height 640, frame
    >>>> rate 29.97,
    >>>> field order - upper field first, pixel aspct ratio - 1.0, reference
    >>>> frames 2,
    >>>> variable bit rate - 2 pass, maximum bps - 2000000, average bps -
    >>>> 768000, YUV;
    >>>> audio - 128 Kbps, stereo AAC
    >>>>
    >>>> The video was good, but when you use it on a html page using the html5
    >>>> <video> the video becomes distorted. See http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/IE9_640x480MP4avcH264.png
    >>>> . You can take this mp4 and run it through Apple's pay Pro QT player
    >>>> to easily convert it to .mov for use on a Safari browser. However when
    >>>> you view on Safari for Windows, the video is distorted, but in a
    >>>> different way than for the mp4 on IE9 beta. See the screen shot at
    >>>> http://www.cwdjr.net/html5/Safari640x480mov.png . It turns out that
    >>>> this problem on both IE bata and Safari is resolved by making the
    >>>> video field a square, in this case 640x640. Then the video is not
    >>>> distorted, but there are blank strips at the top and bottom of the
    >>>> video field.
    >>>>
    >>>> The Chrome browser had a big black box just to the left of the video.
    >>>> However this problem is solved easily by changing a little css to make
    >>>> the background-color black for the division containing the video.
    >>>>
    >>>> Since valid conventional code for media also works on html5, I intend
    >>>> to use it for media until html5 is final and has a few less bugs.
    >>>> Although there are $ and political reasons why some large companies
    >>>> are pushing html5 so much, it is not ready for prime time for me. If
    >>>> you want IE users to view video, you are going to also have to to
    >>>> provide a conventional video path until most IE7 and 8 browsers are
    >>>> gone, or Google or someone else can provide an expanded script to
    >>>> force IE7 and 8 to support <video>.

    >>
    >>> So,
    >>> Checked and worked on Oct. 6, 2010, on latest versions of IE9-beta, Safari for Windows, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Seamonkey,
    >>> and Flock.
    >>> What's that user percentage going to work out to be?
    >>> http://ishtml5readyyet.com/

    >>
    >> Astroturf site from adobe?
    >>
    >> Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE fucking 6,
    >> the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least since
    >> IE5.

    >
    > You missed one.
    > I believe there may have been a 5.5 as well ;)


    Follow up.
    Have you seen this?
    http://mrdoob.com/lab/javascript/effects/ie6/
    ;)
    Gotta use a html5 browser.

    --
    Double parked on the corner of Null and Void.
    idle, Oct 7, 2010
    #12
  13. cwdjrxyz

    Dylan Parry Guest

    idle <> wrote:

    >> Someone on there is advocating IE6 as a baseline standard. IE fucking
    > > 6,
    >> the worst atrocity of a web browser to ever exist. Well, at least
    > > since
    >> IE5.

    >
    > You missed one.
    > I believe there may have been a 5.5 as well ;)


    From what I remember, IE5.5 was a huge improvement over IE5! Even IE6
    was once good (ish), but anything a decade out of date is going to cause
    hell for folks.

    --
    Dylan Parry
    Dylan Parry, Oct 7, 2010
    #13
  14. Neredbojias wrote:
    > On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones<>
    > glyphed:
    >
    >> Neredbojias wrote:
    >>>>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/
    >>>>>
    >>>> this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk
    >>>
    >>> If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are
    >>> trying to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.neredbojias.org/
    >>>
    >>> ...or:
    >>>
    >>> http://www.neredbojias.net/
    >>>

    >>
    >> Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors
    >>
    >> I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5
    >>
    >> But are the other legit errors
    >>
    >> http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV
    >>
    >> the second version using net looks good also but has these errors as
    >> shown here:
    >>
    >> http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc
    >>
    >> again because its html5 you can discount the first error about
    >> doctype.
    >>
    >> but are the other legit errors.

    >
    > I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
    > pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
    > (-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.) The results to
    > which you link seem to show a problem with the&amp; construct somehow.
    > I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.
    >


    well the validator is based on Tidy and SGML

    see this:

    http://screencast.com/t/6ThE4PESCa

    and:

    http://screencast.com/t/nmDFppiE

    Just wondering.

    Your sites look great though.

    --
    Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
    http://www.phillipmjones.net/ mailto:p
    Phillip Jones, Oct 8, 2010
    #14
  15. cwdjrxyz

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 07 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones <>
    glyphed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >> On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones<>
    >> glyphed:
    >>
    >>> Neredbojias wrote:
    >>>>>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk
    >>>>
    >>>> If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are
    >>>> trying to enter two (2) urls simultaneously. Try either:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.neredbojias.org/
    >>>>
    >>>> ...or:
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.neredbojias.net/
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors
    >>>
    >>> I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5
    >>>
    >>> But are the other legit errors
    >>>
    >>> http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV
    >>>
    >>> the second version using net looks good also but has these errors
    >>> as shown here:
    >>>
    >>> http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc
    >>>
    >>> again because its html5 you can discount the first error about
    >>> doctype.
    >>>
    >>> but are the other legit errors.

    >>
    >> I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
    >> pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
    >> (-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.) The results
    >> to which you link seem to show a problem with the&amp; construct
    >> somehow. I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.
    >>

    >
    > well the validator is based on Tidy and SGML
    >
    > see this:
    >
    > http://screencast.com/t/6ThE4PESCa
    >
    > and:
    >
    > http://screencast.com/t/nmDFppiE


    Ah, I think I see; it is an HTML Tidy-thing. Alas, being completely
    unfamiliar with Tidy, I can hardly comment on the efficacy of its
    excretions. Perhaps someone who uses Tidy regularly and knows its
    methods can enlighten us regarding the earlier output messages you
    posted.

    > Just wondering.
    >
    > Your sites look great though.


    Thanks, and as I've intimated, I consider them error-free and
    up-to-snuff in the html department.


    --
    Neredbojias

    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Oct 8, 2010
    #15
  16. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Oct 8, 12:02 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > On 07 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones <>
    > glyphed:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Neredbojias wrote:
    > >> On 06 Oct 2010, the varmint Phillip Jones<>
    > >> glyphed:

    >
    > >>> Neredbojias wrote:
    > >>>>>>>http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/

    >
    > >>>>>     this is what I get when going to site see Screen shot:

    >
    > >>>>>http://screencast.com/t/oGvvRuxrk

    >
    > >>>> If you are referring to the urls in my sig, it's because you are
    > >>>> trying to enter two (2) urls simultaneously.  Try either:

    >
    > >>>>http://www.neredbojias.org/

    >
    > >>>> ...or:

    >
    > >>>>http://www.neredbojias.net/

    >
    > >>> Okay now looks good but my html validator show these errors

    >
    > >>> I realize that the first Item is not even used in HTML 5

    >
    > >>> But are the other legit errors

    >
    > >>>http://screencast.com/t/Swti6FvV

    >
    > >>> the second version using net looks good also but has these errors
    > >>> as shown here:

    >
    > >>>http://screencast.com/t/8WQWVlAwc

    >
    > >>> again because its html5 you can discount the first error about
    > >>> doctype.

    >
    > >>> but are the other legit errors.

    >
    > >> I'm not quite sure of the nature of _your_ html validator but both
    > >> pages validate with the w3c validator as both html5 and html4 strict
    > >> (-with the replacement of proper doctypes, of course.)  The results
    > >> to which you link seem to show a problem with the&amp; construct
    > >> somehow. I'd say the errors indicated are bogus.

    >
    > > well the validator  is based on Tidy and SGML

    >
    > > see this:

    >
    > >http://screencast.com/t/6ThE4PESCa

    >
    > > and:

    >
    > >http://screencast.com/t/nmDFppiE

    >
    > Ah, I think I see; it is an HTML Tidy-thing.  Alas, being completely
    > unfamiliar with Tidy, I can hardly comment on the efficacy of its
    > excretions.  Perhaps someone who uses Tidy regularly and knows its
    > methods can enlighten us regarding the earlier output messages you
    > posted.
    >
    > > Just wondering.

    >
    > > Your sites look great though.

    >
    > Thanks, and as I've intimated, I consider them error-free and
    > up-to-snuff in the html department.
    >
    > --
    > Neredbojias
    >
    > http://www.neredbojias.org/http://www.neredbojias.net/


    The only worthwhile validator for html, xhtml, etc is that of the w3c
    which sets the standards. Since it is open source, other sites
    sometimes offer about the same thing. The Doctype is all important for
    validation, because it allows selection of the proper validator for
    the code you use. If you go to the w3c validator at http://validator.w3.org/
    you will find that both of his Neredbojias' links validate fully as
    html5. Likewise, so does my link that started this thread. My link got
    extra junk added after html somewhere down this thread as indicated by
    the blue underline extending past the html. You either must copy the
    link only through html or go back to my first post to use the link.
    This sort of thing sometimes happens with multiple quotes on Usenet,
    so watch for blue underlines that extend past the final .html or other
    extension used.

    Now Tidy is not a validator, but rather a code cleanup program. It can
    be reached through the w3c valaditor, but has nothing to do with the
    w3c or their validators. Some people may find Tidy useful for
    housekeeping like cleanups of their web page. However, if if you use
    Tidy, the code suggestions it makes do not make the page valid in some
    cases. For example, validate the entry page to a major site such as
    http://www.apple.com and select to also use Tidy. In the case of the
    Apple site, you find it is html5 with a few errors. Tidy rewrites the
    page. Now copy the page code suggested by Tidy, and select to validate
    using direct input of the Tidy page into a text box available. You
    will find that the Tidy page does not validate. When possible get you
    page to validate first. Then, if you wish, see what Tidy gives you.
    You may or may not find something in the Tidy code that will reduce
    the lines of code, etc. In some cases, use of Tidy before the page is
    valid may help find errors.
    cwdjrxyz, Oct 8, 2010
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. cwdjrxyz
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    666
    cwdjrxyz
    Sep 23, 2010
  2. idle

    Re: HTML5 browser support

    idle, Mar 20, 2012, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    641
    Tim Streater
    Mar 20, 2012
  3. lukas
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    731
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    Mar 2, 2010
  4. Maurice Helwig

    HTML5 in Firefox and other browsers

    Maurice Helwig, Aug 24, 2012, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    713
    Maurice Helwig
    Aug 24, 2012
  5. Mr. X.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    716
    cwdjrxyz
    Dec 15, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page