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 421681
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 01:54 UTC 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[5]: 1-2 Punch
by aesiamun on Fri 30th Apr 2010 04:09 in reply to "RE[4]: 1-2 Punch"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Where is it written that it needs to be royalty free to be a standard? Just because it hasn't happened doesn't me an it can't.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 04:36 in reply to "RE[5]: 1-2 Punch"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Where is it written that it needs to be royalty free to be a standard? Just because it hasn't happened doesn't me an it can't.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
On the standard organisation side, the W3C ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3C
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the main international standards organization for the World Wide Web (abbreviated WWW or W3).

Founded and headed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the consortium is made up of member organizations which maintain full-time staff for the purpose of working together in the development of standards for the World Wide Web. As of 8 September 2009, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has 356 members.


In accord with the W3C Process Document, a Recommendation progresses through five maturity levels:

1 Working Draft (WD)
2 Last Call Working Draft
3 Candidate Recommendation (CR)
4 Proposed Recommendation (PR)
5 W3C Recommendation (REC)

A Recommendation may be updated by separately published Errata until enough substantial edits accumulate, at which time a new edition of the Recommendation may be produced (e.g., XML is now in its fifth edition). W3C also publishes various kinds of informative Notes which are not intended to be treated as standards.

W3C leaves it up to manufacturers to follow the Recommendations. Many of its standards define levels of conformance, which the developers must follow if they wish to label their product W3C-compliant. Like any standards of other organizations, W3C recommendations are sometimes implemented partially. The Recommendations are under a royalty-free patent license, allowing anyone to implement them.


At this time, AFAIK, HTML5 is only a Candidate Recommendation (CR), or perhaps even earlier.

It won't progress to a W3C Recommendation (REC) until it specifies a suitable codec, and that codec must be royalty-free.

Edited 2010-04-30 04:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 06:18 in reply to "RE[5]: 1-2 Punch"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Where is it written that it needs to be royalty free to be a standard? Just because it hasn't happened doesn't me an it can't.


Rather than a wikipedia page, I have sought out policy statements direct from the horses mouth, as it were, just in case there is any further idiotic challenge similar to the above:

http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice#sec-Goals
Goals and Overview
This current practice has evolved in order to satisfy the goal held by a number of W3C Members and significant parts of the larger Web community: that W3C Recommendations should be, as far as possible, implementable on a Royalty-Free basis. The current practice described here seeks to:

- establish Royalty-Free implementation as a goal for Recommendations produced by new and re-chartered Working Groups;
- encourage maximum disclosure of patents that might prevent a W3C Recommendation from being implemented on a Royalty-Free basis;
- provide a process for addressing situations in which the goal of Royalty-Free implementation may not be attainable.

This document relies on the definition of Royalty-Free licensing as described in the W3C Patent Policy Framework Last Call Working Draft. Note that current W3C patent practice does not require any W3C Member to make a Royalty-Free licensing commitment for essential patents it may hold. Such a commitment is under discussion in the Patent Policy Working Group for possible inclusion in of the final patent policy, but has not been implemented.


The whole aim of W3C is to get Royalty-free standards for the web, where practicable.

There is certainly at least one viable way to achieve this primary W3C goal for the video codec within the HTML5 specification.

BTW, HTML5 is indeed a W3C specification.

This document linked above should shut the doubters up, one would hope.

Edited 2010-04-30 06:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2