Straight from the horses mouth, that is the state of HTML5 video and why we got there. The posted article is built on the idea that HTML5 requires H.264 when that is not the case at all. The spec does not specify a codec for use on the video tag, just as it doesn't for the img tag.
More importantly, the authors claim "we can cut to the chase and try to get the HTML5 spec fixed--in which case the commercial vendors would have to fix their implementations in order to be considered compliant." is bogus as well. The spec is a delicate balance. If something is spec'd out, but major vendors are not going to implement it, then you have accomplished nothing by putting it in the spec, and in fact, the spec actually harmful at that point because people will believe it is implemented correctly. The spec is only useful insofar as it is a set of things that all the players can agree to implement.
I do recommend reading through the email I linked to, in it Ian Hixie, by responding to emails he received, lays out a lot of the thinking that guided the making of the spec.
The link is good, but you repeat the highly misleading claim that video shouldn't specify a codec because img tag doesn't specify an image format.
If that's the case then why did Hixie spec an interoperable codec in the first place? I think the answer is obvious when you count the number and quality of competing, royalty-free image formats that uphold the basic principles of the web versus the number and quality of competing, royalty-free video codecs.
Claiming that not specifying a codec will lead to anything other than a de-facto standard of the non-royalty free H.264 is ridiculously, shockingly disingenuous. It's just shady lawyering to claim that pushing for a codec, that by its very nature can't be in the spec, and having its rivals removed from the spec, is anything other than the equivalent of having it in the spec.
A lively discussion, but most seem to miss the fact that the spec did require Theora (though not exclusively, just as a baseline to ensure interoperability) and Apple, with a little help from Nokia, had it removed from the spec because they refused to implement it.
So if Apple aren't the right people to complain to, I don't know who is. (Probably if Microsoft had implemented Theora then it would have been added back to the spec, as Apple would have been in a clear minority then, so complain to them too).
The working group tasked with creating HTML5 has a charter that defines what are they supposed to work on and deliver. The codec of the content served through the video tag is outside of the scope defined in said charter. Apple, among others, have argued only that. What Microsoft could have done might have had impact on the outcome of h.264 vs. Theora, but it would not have changed the HTML5 specification.
I think you could throw Google's name on the list there as well. Ian Hixie says:
>Google ships both H.264 and Theora support in Chrome; YouTube only
>supports H.264, and is unlikely to use Theora until the codec improves
>substantially from its current quality-per-bit.[1]
If the most popular video destination on the web continues to use H.264, then Theora adoption is a little less meaningful. (but still meaningful)
W3C is in no way, shape or form "allowing H.264 to infiltrate its way". The HTML5 spec does not require or endorse h.264 or any other codec. Opera's, and Mozilla's I believe, attempt to sneak a codec requirement in the spec (Theora) was shot down, and rightly so, because it falls outside of the scope of HTML5, just as the encoding of image files displayed through the img tag is outside of its scope.
"""The fact is, the W3C is violating its own principles by allowing H.264 to infiltrate its way into the next HTML spec."""
I think this is a very valid point, w3c is suppose to promote open tools for the web of consumers and authors regardless their technology. A patented tool does not promote this.
Within W3C's mission statement ( http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission ), this is not mentioned. Can you provide a reference to back up this claim? (that is, that W3C is supposed to promote open tools or would violate any of its principles by not requiring to support any particular video encoding)
What kind of bullshit is this? The spec does not forbid you to use any codec you want. Or do you want it to ban H.264 so inferior codecs could have a chance? Way to go.
If the spec forbade "the" codec, the offending vendors will simply violate the spec and claim some kind of justification for it.
Yes, we're complaining to the wrong people. No, going to the W3C is not the answer.
I tend to think that if we can get people to stop using h.264 for anything, then freer codecs could gain traction - particularly On2's (now Google's) VP8.
Or, taking the bigger perspective, we should be complaining to the US Congress: patents are the problem, not Microsoft's choice in codecs. If there were no patents to license, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
macrael|16 years ago
Read this instead: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-Jun...
Straight from the horses mouth, that is the state of HTML5 video and why we got there. The posted article is built on the idea that HTML5 requires H.264 when that is not the case at all. The spec does not specify a codec for use on the video tag, just as it doesn't for the img tag.
More importantly, the authors claim "we can cut to the chase and try to get the HTML5 spec fixed--in which case the commercial vendors would have to fix their implementations in order to be considered compliant." is bogus as well. The spec is a delicate balance. If something is spec'd out, but major vendors are not going to implement it, then you have accomplished nothing by putting it in the spec, and in fact, the spec actually harmful at that point because people will believe it is implemented correctly. The spec is only useful insofar as it is a set of things that all the players can agree to implement.
I do recommend reading through the email I linked to, in it Ian Hixie, by responding to emails he received, lays out a lot of the thinking that guided the making of the spec.
ZeroGravitas|16 years ago
If that's the case then why did Hixie spec an interoperable codec in the first place? I think the answer is obvious when you count the number and quality of competing, royalty-free image formats that uphold the basic principles of the web versus the number and quality of competing, royalty-free video codecs.
Claiming that not specifying a codec will lead to anything other than a de-facto standard of the non-royalty free H.264 is ridiculously, shockingly disingenuous. It's just shady lawyering to claim that pushing for a codec, that by its very nature can't be in the spec, and having its rivals removed from the spec, is anything other than the equivalent of having it in the spec.
vvatsa|16 years ago
ZeroGravitas|16 years ago
So if Apple aren't the right people to complain to, I don't know who is. (Probably if Microsoft had implemented Theora then it would have been added back to the spec, as Apple would have been in a clear minority then, so complain to them too).
lurch_mojoff|16 years ago
macrael|16 years ago
>Google ships both H.264 and Theora support in Chrome; YouTube only >supports H.264, and is unlikely to use Theora until the codec improves >substantially from its current quality-per-bit.[1]
If the most popular video destination on the web continues to use H.264, then Theora adoption is a little less meaningful. (but still meaningful)
[1]: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-Jun...
lurch_mojoff|16 years ago
vvatsa|16 years ago
I think this is a very valid point, w3c is suppose to promote open tools for the web of consumers and authors regardless their technology. A patented tool does not promote this.
DrJokepu|16 years ago
rimantas|16 years ago
greyfade|16 years ago
If the spec forbade "the" codec, the offending vendors will simply violate the spec and claim some kind of justification for it.
Yes, we're complaining to the wrong people. No, going to the W3C is not the answer.
I tend to think that if we can get people to stop using h.264 for anything, then freer codecs could gain traction - particularly On2's (now Google's) VP8.
Or, taking the bigger perspective, we should be complaining to the US Congress: patents are the problem, not Microsoft's choice in codecs. If there were no patents to license, this wouldn't be an issue at all.
bartl|16 years ago