The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#2"""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.
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#3This is complete nonsense.
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.
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#4A 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).
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#5W3C 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.
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#6A 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…
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)
[1]: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-Jun...
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#7A 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…
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.
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#8This is complete nonsense. 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 autho…
Very informative, Thanks.
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#9This is complete nonsense. 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 autho…
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.
Re: The H.264 Debacle: We're Complaining to the Wrong People
#10A 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…
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) […
I don't really mind Youtube (or Apple Keynotes, Quicktime Movie Trailers etc.) not using royalty-free codecs that much. If every web decision was made through the lens of "is this image format suitable for Flickr", or "is this text encoding suitable for Wikipedia" then you'd end up with a very strange kind of web. Youtube seems to be regularly predicted to kill the internet as a whole anyway due to its size and popularity, with or without Theora.
If anyone is going to make extra work for themselves by using multiple codecs, or be subject to licence fees then it should be the giants of the web, not folk uploading videos of their cats to their blog (a demographic for whom Theora is a perfectly good solution if it was supported by Apple and Microsoft).