Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:04 UTC
Internet Explorer I am almost flabbergasted by the spin and blunt-face upon which this news is delivered. We were just discussing the pot calling the kettle black with Apple / Adobe and now Microsoft have also come out in favour of a closed video format for an open web--IE9's HTML5 video support will allow H264 only. Update Now that the initial shock is over, I've rewritten the article to actually represent news rather than something on Twitter.
Thread beginning with comment 421635
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: 1-2 Punch
by David on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:29 UTC in reply to "RE: 1-2 Punch"
David
Member since:
1997-10-01

(and no, I didn't put much thought into my comment)

But thinking about it now, I'm not talking about extending h264, I'm talking about the nascent HTML5 video utopia. They're embracing HTML 5 video by talking about how great it is, extending it by promoting the html5/h264 combo, and extinguishing the utopia by trying to forever tie the open html5 standard to the closed h264 pseudo-standard.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: 1-2 Punch
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:33 in reply to "RE[2]: 1-2 Punch"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

h264 is a real standard.

MS is as complicit as the W3C. so you are claiming the Web Standards Body is looking to kill HTML5 video.

The problem with Absolutism on a topic is that it does not fit right in the real world.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: 1-2 Punch
by segedunum on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:57 in reply to "RE[3]: 1-2 Punch"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

h264 is a real standard.

Says who? There is certainly no format dictated as part of HTML5.

MS is as complicit as the W3C. so you are claiming the Web Standards Body is looking to kill HTML5 video.

Why not? They've done their best to kill off HTML5 video in a flurry of contradictions via various interested parties. Microsoft in particular would rather you used Windows Media and Silverlight. Microsoft have belatedly committed to h.264 because the web has threatened to move on without them and define their own standards for HTML5 video.

The problem with Absolutism on a topic is that it does not fit right in the real world.

See your statement on h.264 as a standard above.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 01:54 in reply to "RE[3]: 1-2 Punch"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

h264 is a real standard.


Yes it is. Indeed. It is the standard video codec for some applications such as digial TV transmissions and Blueray video players, is it not?

MS is as complicit as the W3C. so you are claiming the Web Standards Body is looking to kill HTML5 video. The problem with Absolutism on a topic is that it does not fit right in the real world.


Say what? h264 is NOT the standard codec for use on the web. It can't be, because it doesn't meet the royalty-free requirement for use in that role.

Being royalty-free IS a requirement for web standards, didn't you know? Absolutely it is. Every other web standard meets it.

Here is an example, and at the same time an indicator that Microsoft is very well aware of the requirement that web satndards must be royalty-free.

http://news.cnet.com/microsoft-news/?keyword=W3C
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Microsoft-backs-Web-Open-Fon...
A WebFonts group was founded at the W3C in March, and this group now has the submitted specification to begin its technical work. Microsoft, Mozilla, Opera, TypeSupply and LettError have all signed up to the W3C royalty free licensing requirements for any patented material within the submission.


Edited 2010-04-30 02:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: 1-2 Punch
by google_ninja on Fri 30th Apr 2010 02:10 in reply to "RE[2]: 1-2 Punch"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Ok, so they embraced HTML5 video. They didn't extend any standard, that would be implementing the video tag by calling it ms-video or something stupid, and giving it a different javascript api then everyone else.

As for the codec, the w3c backed off specific codecs now for the spec, so its up to the implementors. Not only that, but what apple is doing is having a worse effect at this point - you can download chrome on windows which supports both, but if you are on an iDevice (which dominates the mobile web), it is h264 only.

If they had done something like implement the video tag with WMV only support, then I would probably agree with you, even though it still doesn't really fit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 02:17 in reply to "RE[3]: 1-2 Punch"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As for the codec, the w3c backed off specific codecs now for the spec, so its up to the implementors.


Only at the insistence of Apple. W3C originally specified Theora, and Apple threw a hissy fit and vetoed that. Since there is no other competitive royalty-free video codec available at this time, the W3C have been unable to include the codec specification as yet within the HTML5 specification.

This in turn is a major reason why HTML5 is not yet a W3C recommendation.

The codec is NOT up to the implementors. One cannot have a royalty encumberence within a web satndard, so there is no agreed standard as yet.

Perhaps if Google make VP8 royalty-free, then this situation can be resolved. Or maybe Theora can be agreed upon eventually. Whatever ... h264 is NOT it.

Reply Parent Score: 3