http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the HTML5 <video> element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not specify a default codec for the <video> element.
-- Hay
Hay (Husky) wrote:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the HTML5 <video> element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not specify a default codec for the <video> element.
Technically yes, that's the same state things have been in for a year.
In practice, however... On the desktop browser end, Mozilla, Google, and Opera are all supporting Ogg Theora & Vorbis. Microsoft doesn't even support <video>, so only Apple is not supporting Ogg out of the box of those implementing it so far.
(Desktops are relatively versatile and upgradeable however; mobile browsers which can't easily be replaced or given codec plugins might be more interesting territory for a codec battle royale.)
-- brion
H264 already plays in, IIRC, 98% of browsers through flash.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Hay (Husky) huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the HTML5 <video> element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not specify a default codec for the <video> element.
-- Hay
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/7/3 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
H264 already plays in, IIRC, 98% of browsers through flash.
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Adobe claims around 99% of all web users to have Flash installed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_flash#Installed_user_base
-- Hay
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Hay (Husky) huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Adobe claims around 99% of all web users to have Flash installed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_flash#Installed_user_base
-- Hay
I think you have to have Flash 9 to get H264.
It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and h264 codecs.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, BrianBrian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and h264 codecs.
No, it's not. H.264 is patented and you need to pay licensing fees to use it. It's not an open standard and should not be used on the web if it's at all avoidable. It's possible Mozilla couldn't even legally ship it, at least if they continue to distribute under the GPL. (Maybe if they distributed only as LGPL/MPL they could avoid any issues by making the H.264 part BSD-licensed or something.)
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.comSimetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, BrianBrian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and h264 codecs.
No, it's not. H.264 is patented and you need to pay licensing fees to use it. It's not an open standard and should not be used on the web if it's at all avoidable. It's possible Mozilla couldn't even legally ship it, at least if they continue to distribute under the GPL. (Maybe if they distributed only as LGPL/MPL they could avoid any issues by making the H.264 part BSD-licensed or something.)
A compromise is a win-win. In the absence of a compromise its a lose-lose. Except that H264 wins since almost all of us already support it.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, BrianBrian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
A compromise is a win-win.
Compromising is not a good idea per se. It's only a good idea if it advances your goals more than refusing to compromises. Some compromises are bad and should not be accepted. If you put enough importance on open standards, a fragmented web where authors need to provide both H.264 and Theora to get optimal functionality is *better* than one where everyone can just provide H.264 and ignores Theora. In the first case, Theora will improve and become well-known, and maybe stand a chance of eventually winning the format war. In the second, Theora has lost, permanently.
2009/7/3 Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu:
A compromise is a win-win. In the absence of a compromise its a lose-lose. Except that H264 wins since almost all of us already support it.
Relying on something rendered radioactive by the software patents attached to it is not a win.
It would be lovely if H.264 wasn't, legally speaking, toxic waste. However, it is.
- d.
Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a format for whatever reason?
Thanks, -Mike
It's not free as it is patent encumbered, see [[H.264#Patent_licensing]].
--Falcorian
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fmwrote:
Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a format for whatever reason?
Thanks, -Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Silly me, I never thought anyone would even consider having a standard that wasn't completely open.
-Mike
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 00:16 -0700, Falcorian wrote:
It's not free as it is patent encumbered, see [[H.264#Patent_licensing]].
--Falcorian
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fmwrote:
Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a format for whatever reason?
Thanks, -Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 14:01, Mike.lifeguard mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm wrote:
Silly me, I never thought anyone would even consider having a standard that wasn't completely open.
Maybe you are joking and i am missing it, but that is indeed sad - Nokia, Apple, Microsoft and many other companies really like non-open standards and dislike open ones. In the particular case of video, they all probably hate OGG, because it is not DRM-friendly.
But it's even better not to push OGG through a committee, but to make it the de-facto standard by just using it as much as possible and recommending Wikipedia readers to install a browser that supports it. Microsoft made IP their main network protocol after their proprietary offerings weren't so popular, while ODF's adoption is still weak in comparison to MS-Office despite apparent support from standards committees and some local laws.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Amir E. Aharoniamir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe you are joking and i am missing it, but that is indeed sad - Nokia, Apple, Microsoft and many other companies really like non-open standards and dislike open ones. In the particular case of video, they all probably hate OGG, because it is not DRM-friendly.
It's not a DRM issue afaik. For Apple it's mostly because they have heavily invested in H264 as their video codec of choice (think hardware chips in iPods and iPhones) and because of the 'uncertain patent landscape' surrounding Theora (just restating what Hixie already said on the WHATWG mailing list).
For Microsoft it's a completely different issue. Their strategy is frustrating the HTML5 process by ignoring any requests for comments on HTML5-related issues because they want Silverlight to be the de-facto language for writing rich internet apps. Also, any embracing of HTML5 on the MS side would mean that they venture onto Google's terrain, who is almighty when it comes to using the browser for RIA's.
We do have a somewhat important role in this whole debate, because we are one of the few major websites that have embraced OGG for many years, and using it as our sole way of displaying video. When, at a certain point in time, all WP articles have beautiful OGG video's using the <video> element IE and Safari users might start to complain about the lack of native support in their browsers, forcing MS and Apple to support <video> and Theora in their browsers.
But that might be wishful thinking :)
-- Hay
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 13:26, Amir E. Aharoniamir.aharoni@gmail.com wrote:
But it's even better not to push OGG through a committee, but to make it the de-facto standard by just using it as much as possible and recommending Wikipedia readers to install a browser that supports it.
And like it or not we may happen to be stonger than micro$oft on this field since we may very possibly have more influence on the webizens around than them. If we push people to use free codecs (vorbis instead of mp3, theora or dirac instead of h.264 and mpeg4 and divx) the world may actually follow suit.
Not a decision which should be taken lightly.
(And naturally I'm for free codecs, let's kill wmv, or vmw or whatever that pest called.)
My 2 'cents.
grin
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Hay (Husky)huskyr@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the HTML5 <video> element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not specify a default codec for the <video> element.
Theora supporters should be pleased with this. Theora is clearly better supported in browsers currently implementing the <video> element, but H.264 is way more common in the broader video environment, particularly in terms of hardware support and support outside the browser (in mobile devices, for example). It's much closer to being the de facto standard of the web than Theora is.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org