What's the status of the HTML 5 <video> tag and webcam integration?

views:

8038

answers:

+10 Q:

What's the status of the HTML 5 <video> tag and webcam integration?

Even though it seems to be in some kind of jeopardy, the open video standard is a great idea. I saw some demos on motion tracking with it - just proofs-of-concept, but interesting nonetheless. Now, I'd say that concepts like these would really be a gain, if there would be access to the user's webcam... Just imagine browsing through Flickr with your hands in mid-air.

I have Googled a little, but I can't find any detailed discussion on the subject. It is mentioned in some places, but that doesn't get me very far. Does anybody know whether support for this is planned? If yes, any prognosis on the 'when'? ;-)

Of course, I guess they'd have to dream up a pretty good security model for it...

It will never be possible because it is the last use of plugins which open web standards cannot accomplish. The day streaming audio/video from client to server will be the end of flash/silverlight/what have you. Also there is software patents issue which will make it impossible to encode media if current state of affairs on decoding means anything. There are just too many obstacles before privacy or technical issues. Flash has been doing it for years without anybody whinning about any privacy problems. Geolocation is potentially more dangerous but nobody thinks twice considering its rich possibilities. The closest thing you can get is a webcam with MJPEG stream that is wrapped in multipart-replace and using canvas API to get the image pixels.

artificialidiot 2009-08-23 17:30:59

Haha - *that's* the spirit! "No! We can't do it! Ahhhhh!"

JDrago 2010-03-08 21:43:00

Yeah, as if wishful thinking will get you anywhere. Go convince apple, microsoft, adobe, opera, mozilla. I do this stuff for a living now and html just doesn't work right now. Try writing code, setting up a blog and crying out your lungs. It will never get you anywhere unless big money decide it is profitable.

artificialidiot 2010-10-21 10:36:41

"If you aren’t getting rejected on a daily basis, your goals aren’t ambitious enough." - Chris Dixon

Nicolas Marchildon 2010-10-22 20:31:33

Congratulations, you have made a politically charged comment on a politically charged answer which is more than a year old. Of course I wish <device> is implemented within, I don't know, maybe 4 years but we are still not there.

artificialidiot 2010-10-23 09:11:40

+6 A:

Ok, still no clear, definitive answers, so I went on and took a little action. The WHATWG would probably have an answer for me, so I decided to contact someone there. Didn't really know who it had to be, but fellow Dutchman Anne van Kesteren usually seems to know the Web's future pretty well - plus, he provides an e-mail address.

Translating his response probably won't do any good, so in short: there are some rough ideas on how to make it all work, but there's nothing tangible at the moment. The Device APIs and Policy Working Group is supposed to continue work on this.

Reading through their page makes me realize something else too - why only webcam access? If Google intends to move the OS to the browser, we'll need more than just webcams. Why not manage your iPod through a webapp too? Anything should be possible. I guess a whole new concept of 'trusted website' will have to evolve if functionality like this would come available, but well, there's a solution to pretty much anything, isn't there? ;-)

JorenB 2009-08-26 20:21:05

Here’s a blog post about an HTML `<devices>` element added to the spec during discussions on the possible API: http://blog.whatwg.org/whats-next-in-html-episode-1

Paul D. Waite 2010-02-02 18:44:01

Oh, and re Google and their plans, I think you’ll be able to plug your digital cameras and whatnot into Chrome OS. Whether that makes it into an implemented web standard is another matter.

Paul D. Waite 2010-02-02 18:45:15

While I like your answer, your last sentence is fodder for conversation. "a whole new concept of 'trusted website'" will be invented by Verisign. It will cost a s***ton. It won't be pretty. And, much like a "properly" signed SSL cert, it will be a gimmick, doing essentially nothing more than providing the end user with the comfort of some eye candy that they don't understand.

Chris 2010-05-29 02:52:19

+3 A:

Fixed I guess :)

http://dev.w3.org/html5/html-device/

wadje12 2010-05-07 06:07:11

@artificialidiot

wadje12 knows better!

saint 2010-05-29 02:37:07

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

What's the status of the HTML 5 <video> tag and webcam integration?

related questions