So... what do we do ? I think it might be fine to to simply state "HTML5" as the format instead of "Flash", but perhaps "MP4" "WebM" or "Ogg" (per http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_video.asp) would be better. Mind you WebM is, if not technically then essentially, Flash. Rather technically Flash isn't an actual video file format.
I don't believe we'll have to read much into this, since the video file formats of videos conveyed through the HTML "video" tag doesn't really matter. The whole point of the "format" parameter in external sites is just to indicate to the user what kind of video player would be needed to view the video referenced via link. The web browser itself is a video player as far as HTML5-compliant browsers are concerned, and older browsers have Adobe's plugin. Meanwhile, there are tons of video file formats and, perhaps more importantly, video codecs (H.261, H.263, H.264, VP6, VP8, WMV1 "7", WMV2 "8", MPEG1, MPEG2, FLV et al).
If YouTube stops supporting Flash, then all of the references to YouTube in IMDb's video clip external site listings will have to be changed. The staff may able to unilaterally edit all of them. I don't know.
reply
share