Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Mar 2010 14:15 UTC
Internet & Networking Now that Internet Explorer 9 has been let out its cage, we all know a great deal more about Microsoft's position towards the video codec situation with the HTML5 video tag. Microsoft has chosen for H264, a codec it already includes in Windows by default anyway. This means that apart from Firefox and Opera, every other major browser will support H264. Some are seeing this as a reason for Mozilla to give in to their ideals and include support for H264 as well - I say: Mozilla, stick to your ideals. The last people you should be listening to in matters like this are web developers.
Thread beginning with comment 414277
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why not both?
by thomas_vg1 on Fri 19th Mar 2010 17:46 UTC
thomas_vg1
Member since:
2007-12-28

The img tag supports jpg, gif (once patent encumbered by Unisys), and png. Why not do the same for the video tag? Admittedly this will not solve the license costs for browsers, but at least the issue between choosing one or the other would be settled.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Why not both?
by deathshadow on Fri 19th Mar 2010 18:08 in reply to "Why not both?"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

The img tag supports jpg, gif (once patent encumbered by Unisys), and png. Why not do the same for the video tag? Admittedly this will not solve the license costs for browsers, but at least the issue between choosing one or the other would be settled.

Thing is, IMG was supposed to be deprecated in the next-gen HTML in favor of OBJECT - which was supposed to be the ultimate in REAL freedom.

What do I mean real freedom? FORMAT AGNOSTIC. If the host system has a plugin, codec or decoder to handle the format, the OBJECT tag was supposed to use it - be it image, video, audio or a language applet!

But the whacko's who've hijacked HTML5 adding all this extra unneccessary bull have completely backtracked on the simplification and freedom that the STRICT HTML4/XHTML1.0 doctypes started us down the road on. Now instead of making it simpler they just want to throw in two or three dozen new tags and attributes for god only knows what, instead of just riding microsoft's ass about not implementing OBJECT properly (which they JUST did with IE8 for the first time)

VIDEO and AUDIO, as new tags for HTML is pure manure - as is two-thirds of this new 'specification for nothing' that is only going to result in an even more convoluted mess than the people still coding HTML4 like it was HTML 3.2 and this was 1997.

View Source on most websites to see what I mean - we've only barely broken people of tables for layout, and even when tables are appropriate most coders can't seem to be bothered to learn how to use them (there are tags OTHER than TR and TD that go into tables) - so now they're going to add more tags for people to not learn properly and abuse by nesting until blue in the face? BRILLIANT!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Why not both?
by KClowers on Sat 20th Mar 2010 18:35 in reply to "RE: Why not both?"
KClowers Member since:
2009-12-18

Hey, an XHTML2 troll. You don't see many of them these days.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Why not both?
by sprewell on Sat 20th Mar 2010 00:42 in reply to "Why not both?"
sprewell Member since:
2009-03-25

As others have pointed out, there is an extremely simple solution to this problem: all Mozilla has to do is make the codecs supported by HTML 5 installable as plugins and only ship the free Theora plugin as the default. Rather than forcing their decision on their users just like the other browser vendors, Mozilla could let their users choose to stick with the default Theora codec or install a H.264 plugin from a third party if they choose.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why not both?
by pgeorgi on Sat 20th Mar 2010 09:51 in reply to "RE: Why not both?"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Rather than forcing their decision on their users just like the other browser vendors, Mozilla could let their users choose to stick with the default Theora codec or install a H.264 plugin from a third party if they choose.

Only the first fix is free.

Mozilla is open source. Deliver Mozilla/264 if you care so strongly about it.
Maybe that isn't even necessary, as the extension interface is good enough?

See, two ideas how to approach this without Mozilla effectively endorsing non-free codecs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Gif in Mozilla
by jrincayc on Sun 21st Mar 2010 20:06 in reply to "Why not both?"
jrincayc Member since:
2007-07-24

Gif could be freely decoded, just not freely encoded. http://directory.fsf.org/project/libungif/
H.264 can neither be freely decoded or encoded.

Reply Parent Score: 2