Browser? Codec?

There aren't any limits to the duration of the <video> element. My guess is that the codec you are using doesn't like to be streamed, OR you don't have enough bandwidth.

Sorry, i'm doing this on my Blackberry i'm in the middle of installing and testing some new Linux distro's so my phone is not the best thing to be using to respond to a forum. I meant that a page often does not display without the use of flash

It is harder when you don't know what the heck is going on. And I should add I was most defiantly worse than Hansel (your new nickname ansel )... I used CAPS!

and in regard to you post Hansel, I really must disagree, I mean really, really disagree. My friend Elijah is pretty good with using Javascript and the sites he makes are awesome. I remember he used some Javascript to make the equivalent of the Epilepsy Flash program....

I'm using Firefox,chrome,safari, opera, and my own homebuilt browser. I think I have the bandwidth part covered i'm wondering if it's because my file is too large. Is it possible to break the file apart and then have it play sequentially like chapters without having to go to a new page or is this just too advanced for the <video> tag and I need to go back too flash?

You didn't answer what codec.

File size is completely irrelevant, you are going down the completely wrong path.

And since it plays fine locally I'm betting the bandwidth part isn't as covered as you think. Oh, and what is the server?

I've got three different codecs: OGG ,OGV, h.264 and the same problem with all of them. I was using GoDaddy.com when that failed i tried my dropbox account and it failed too. My bandwidth is anywhere from 4-5mb and when I did the testing no else was on my connection but me.

Does YouTube's HTML5 mode work for you, out of interest?

HTML5 is rather powerful if you ask me, I watched this Music Video back around when HTML5 was first introduced. But it's true Flash is a powerful force online, especially for video & music players.

Regarding bandwidth. I'm assuming Kllrnohj is not wondering how fast you can download a file but how much data your web host can send out to and take in from the internet, or Monthly Bandwidth Transfer. I have 400GB's of Bandwidth on my website. Meaning, I could watch about one 15 Minute 1080p video 400 times before I used my bandwidth up.

That's the impression I get. IMHO, if a site won't function/render properly without either Flash or Javascript enabled, the designer did it wrong. That's where I find HTML5 nice, as it enables a number of newer features which would have required non-HTML elements with older revisions of the standard.

On the other hand, HTML5 certainly isn't sufficient to supplant Flash and the like anytime soon. If more people would adopt svg for animation it might see more use over Flash, but there's no real good toolset for creating svg animations AFAIK.

I have unlimted bandwidth on my website so it's probably not that.
Yes, youtube's html5 works for me. I think one day html5 might become the standard for web video . For now it's useless until they get a free and good codec that everyone supports and has decent drm protection.

Well, unlimited is not unlimited (read your TOS a bit more carefully for more details on that), but I think a bigger concern is your visitors' bandwidth. That's always something very important to keep in mind.

Hmm, you bring up DRM, but FLV, the reigning internet Flash video standard, has no DRM of which I am aware.

I'll have to check on my visitor's bandiwdth, but the reason i say the standard needs drm protection is because if the movie industry think it's good then we could possibly have a better way of watching newly released movies online. Also it's a-lot easier to download a video using html5 than it is when using flash, and I don't think the music industry and other's will like that.

I'm sure the movie industry would want to stick with their own proprietary stand-alone programs for such things rather than relying on a browser plug-in. No, I don't think so either, which is why I don't think they'd use either one for content that they wanted users to have no way to access.