The W3c Schools suggests that the HTML5 <Video> tag is suitable to be used in conjunction with the embed tag to allow cross browser compatibility. The point is you have to have 3 or 4 copies of you videos each under formats ie. .Mp4, .flv, .ogg ,.webm. Is this a suitable method? What do you think about the reliability and accessibility of this method? I have a video converter and some disk space, though would still like some opinions on this as it is a ''bulky'' procedure.
the main advantage is the natural integration with the other layers of the web development stack such as CSS and JavaScript as well as the other HTML tags.
It is really a time consuming process to make a single video to formats ie. .Mp4, .flv, .ogg ,.webm etc. And also i am not sure about browser compatibility.
It is just another of the strikes AGAINST HTML 5 offering any real-world improvements in my book, and instead it's developers being bound and determined to return us to the hell that was the late 90's. Life was actually getting easier when flash was 'all that mattered' for video delivery... Then Apple has to pull their typical "our way or the highway" BS telling users what they can and cannot run on products they bought, and all the browser makers had to go and start pimping their favorite pet video codecs and containers resulting in a mess that's even more fractured and buggy than the nightmare that was Realplayer vs. Windows Media. vs. Quicktime. It's almost like some people are such total re-re's they actually liked realplayer or something... Much less it relying on a new tag that's completely redundant to OBJECT -- which just goes hand in hand with HTML 5's undoing all the progress of strict, pissing on the very notion of validating code or even writing proper code, and instead take the "people are just going to vomit up pages any old way ignoring any rules we create, so let's just document that garbage instead of telling people how to do it" approach to web development. Said attitude having more to do with how HTML 3.2 came into being than 4 STRICT. Which is why I still can't fathom how anyone is DUMB ENOUGH to even be trying to deploy HTML 5 in it's current state, or would want to with most of the garbage it has done to markup -- though as I've said several hundred times the past two years, I suspect that's why they had to throw CSS3 and the new javascripting stuff under it's banner for no legitimate/sensible reason, as without them the Emperor has no clothes... and it's not like you can't actually use CSS3 or the new scripting under 4 Strict or X1.0 Strict. Mostly HTML 5 just seems to have been made to be the new sick buzzword for suits to use without knowing what it means after reading about it in Forbes, allow professional lecturers to put buns in seats, let authors re-release the same half-assed uninformative books they've been recycling since 1998 with a flashy new title, let the folks making websites who haven't updated their skills since 1998 justify their bloated inaccessible sleazeball practices, and on the whole prey on the ignorance of those who don't know any better. It sure as shine-ola has nothing to do with faster, more accessible and easier to maintain website creation. It's also just annoying to sit here and watch history repeat itself.