The main difference between video.js and the video element here is that with the video element, if you set width and height attributes on the tag, they can easily be overridden by CSS. User wants to use CSS to manually set width/height That way it would be overrideable through CSS or through javascript style setting. We could have a default width/height on the main.

User wants a video tag with no width or height or aspect ratio settings to be viewable The video element does this also, so video.js should if possible User wants a fixed height, and auto adjust width to match source aspect ratio from metadata The former would be cleaner and more inline with the video element, but would take more work. We could either have a default aspect ratio that we calculated and set until the metadata is available, or just allow the default height (set on the. The video element does this, so video.js should if possible. User wants a fixed width, and auto adjust height to match source aspect ratio from metadata When you do set a width, you can't use the intrinsic ratio, because the height percentage is based on the width of the parent element, not the video player width itself. Otherwise we would just manually calculate the other value here. If we don't allow this, we could assume whenever aspectRatio is used that we set width to 100%. You could just calucalate height here, so this doesn't seem like a priority. At a minimum, this attribute must have a value of ') Next, using Video.js is as simple as creating a element, but with an additional data-setup attribute.

Vjs html5 video player