Linked by snydeq on Tue 16th Jun 2009 20:01 UTC
Internet & Networking While Adobe, Microsoft, and Sun duke it out with proprietary technologies for implementing multimedia on the Web, HTML 5 has the potential to "eat these vendors' lunches", offering Web experiences based on an industry standard. In fact, one expressed goal of the standard is to move the Web away from proprietary technologies such as Flash, Silverlight, and JavaFX. "It would be a terrible step backward if humanity's major development platform [the Web] was controlled by a single vendor the way that previous platforms such as Windows have been," says HTML 5 co-editor Ian Hickson, a Google employee. But whether HTML 5 and its Canvas technology will displace proprietary plug-ins "really depends on what developers do", says Firefox technical lead Vlad Vukicevic. It also depends on Microsoft, the only company involved in the HTML 5 effort that is both a browser developer and an RIA tool developer.
Thread beginning with comment 368835
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: it might
by pilotgi on Tue 16th Jun 2009 20:48 UTC in reply to "it might"
pilotgi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Um... what proprietary codecs are required for html 5?

Edited 2009-06-16 20:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: it might
by kragil on Tue 16th Jun 2009 20:58 in reply to "RE: it might"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

They couldn't agree on OGG so Google and Apple will use mpeg4.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: it might
by mabhatter on Tue 16th Jun 2009 21:29 in reply to "RE: it might"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

Um... what proprietary codecs are required for html 5?


the HTML5 group really wants Ogg and Theora, but they've been demoted from "required" to "optional" which means things like iPhone will just use h.264 because it's already included and paid for.

The trouble is that with free codex demoted to "optional" you as a host will HAVE to support two different versions.. Imagine if we had to tool all our web pages because companies refused to support PNG and JPEG and GIF at the same time, and every body just supported one in their browser.

On a side note, I'd like to see people stop talking about HTML5 as a "flash/Silverlight killer" and just as a good chance to push an upgrade to web pages. I think the BIGGER push should be to push HTML5 in to the realm of what XHTML tried to do and make it validated, and non-backward-compatible with older versions... We're stuck with XHTML not really doing it's job because they didn't force "strict" from the start and they don't force browsers to identify when they're not in "strict" mode. What needs to be stopped for the web to really move forward are pages coded to HTML 3.2.4.1 1/2.

The biggest bane right now is browsers with "almost" support for standards but because developers are allowed to write crumby pages that don't meet one or the other it's just a muddy mess and you can't even market new features because not enough people have the right version. I think they should start focusing on a multi-step roll out 5.1, 5.2, ect in 4-6 month increments to keep browser makers and web developers in sync.. and to keep the hype up about using new versions because everybody will be doing it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: it might
by Wrawrat on Wed 17th Jun 2009 00:36 in reply to "RE[2]: it might"
Wrawrat Member since:
2005-06-30

I think they should start focusing on a multi-step roll out 5.1, 5.2, ect in 4-6 month increments to keep browser makers and web developers in sync.. and to keep the hype up about using new versions because everybody will be doing it.


Well, that would be the best way for the W3C to lose all their credibility. Who would want to keep up with moving standards? Writing a secure browser is already a tedious task. Having to deal with two or three new standards per year is just going to overburden the poor developers, especially if they have to cope with compliance tests like ACID. As for web developers, only an handful care about the latest technologies, let alone following the standards perfectly. As for end users, most are conservative with their software. Now, they would have to update twice a year to see the latest and greatest? Of course, these users already have to upgrade Flash and Silverlight... However, this process is quite seamless, at least on the major platforms (Windows, OS X). And it's not like updating the whole browser, which usually comes with new features and/or interface that are screwing up the minds of tech-challenged people.

In the end, everybody will be alienated, except the vocal cheerleader minority. A good standard isn't an open-source project.

Talking of open standards, I don't understand why they are bloating HTML 5 with all those RIA features. Wouldn't it just be better to add them in another specification? Of course, the adoption rate could be show, but HTML 5 would show up sooner.

Edited 2009-06-17 00:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: it might
by lemur2 on Wed 17th Jun 2009 06:09 in reply to "RE[2]: it might"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

the HTML5 group really wants Ogg and Theora, but they've been demoted from "required" to "optional" which means things like iPhone will just use h.264 because it's already included and paid for.

The trouble is that with free codex demoted to "optional" you as a host will HAVE to support two different versions.. Imagine if we had to tool all our web pages because companies refused to support PNG and JPEG and GIF at the same time, and every body just supported one in their browser.


If you are building a web client, and there are optional codecs, at least on of which is free, then why wouldn't all web clients include the free one and only proprietary web clients include the non-free ones as well?

http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/html-5/1

Why wouldn't ALL browsers try to be compliant with this? Proprietary ones could try to sell non-free stuff such as Flash and Silverlight as extra capability, but they won't have much show if the can't also do the free codec stuff as well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: it might
by kaiwai on Wed 17th Jun 2009 14:06 in reply to "RE[2]: it might"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

the HTML5 group really wants Ogg and Theora, but they've been demoted from "required" to "optional" which means things like iPhone will just use h.264 because it's already included and paid for.


True; I wish the h264 licensing had moved to something where playback is free of charge but encoding you have to pay for - when it comes to royalty payments. Right now alot of developments are being held up, not through lack of technology but because of idiotic patents and royalty agreements that place profit before long term development of a marketplace where individuals compete on merit rather than cornering off parts of the market and erecting barriers to interoperability.

Reply Parent Score: 2