Please refer to, what their first paragraph contains and what the FAQ state (In reply to guest271314 from comment #4) Specifically the W3C MediaRecorder specification does not contain any language whatsoever as to a limitation on container or codecs that can be used. The original WebM specification supported VP8 and Vorbis, correct? Now MediaRecorder does not support Vorbis, but rather supports Opus, and also supports VP9.Ĭhromium/Chrome currently supports video/x-matroska codecs=h264, video/x-matroska codecs=avc1 and video/webm codecs=h264. Where in the WebM specification does the language state that WebM can ONLY support certain codecs? What about raising a bug with chrome so that their recorder generate valid files instead, compliant with the spec they have written? Seeing that webm support isn't universal across browsers, the path you describe will be needed regardless. So that they could generate something against their own spec is really baffling. Google are the ones who set the spec on what is allowed in a webm. (In reply to Jean-Yves Avenard from comment #3)
#Open h264 video codec firefox Patch
I have tested the attached patch to add h.264 support to the firefox nightly, and it works for all my mentioned use cases. Since H.264 is supported but with another container and the webm container (based on matroska) can handle h.264 just fine it is possible to modify the demuxer for webm slightly to support is.
h.264 based stream '' does not workĪlso mimetype was reported as unsupported. Website using media extensions to feed a livestream. Simple website with videofile with h.264 content The webm is extremely suited for this purpose. Tried to play a webm file with h.264 content.Īlso tried to use this format with the media extensions.īeing able to stream h.264 with webm and media extensions allows me to create livestreams and send them to multiple users without re-encoding.