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 421688
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Huh?
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 02:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Huh?"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

WTF are you talking about? Go to youtube. You see that crappy quality Flash video plying, guess what it was encoded in? Yeah, that'd be h.264. All this crap about h.264 but most internet video regardless of what container it uses, encode their video in h.264 because of the benefits of the format.


Neither Flash nor h264 is a web satndard.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Huh?
by aesiamun on Fri 30th Apr 2010 04:23 in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

Repeating it does not make up for the fact that you haven't given any proof...

Your repetition is one of the key things that you shouldn't do to an INTJ...yet you seem to keep doing it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Huh?
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 04:46 in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You keep saying that but fail to back it up with any proof.


It is common knowledge. I have provided proof in my previous post.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?421724

Repeating it does not make up for the fact that you haven't given any proof... Your repetition is one of the key things that you shouldn't do to an INTJ...yet you seem to keep doing it.


As an INTJ, it is actually quite in character for me to be repeatedly correct.

Edited 2010-04-30 04:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Huh?
by phoenix on Fri 30th Apr 2010 04:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Huh?"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Technically, it's still a standard for video encoding/decoding. As in, gone through the ITU standardisation process, such that it was given the name H.264.

Yes, it's not "the standard for video on the web". But it's still a standard.

Just like OOXML is a standard for office documents.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Huh?
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 05:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Technically, it's still a standard for video encoding/decoding. As in, gone through the ITU standardisation process, such that it was given the name H.264. Yes, it's not "the standard for video on the web". But it's still a standard.


Yes, but in the context of this thread and its topic, which is "IE9 HTML5 Video Will Be H264 Only" ... H264 is NOT the standard within HTML5 and it never will be.

Just like OOXML is a standard for office documents.


OOXML is also in a lot of trouble, standards-wise.

http://www.osnews.com/story/23124/Microsoft_Office_15_-_Not_2010_-_...

Edited 2010-04-30 05:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Huh?
by segedunum on Sat 1st May 2010 00:58 in reply to "RE[4]: Huh?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Just like OOXML is a standard for office documents.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Two things are required of a 'standard':

1. That it is well used. This is generally called 'de-facto'. This isn't great, but the reality is that many things have become de-facto standards that affect point 2.

2. That it can be implemented in a multitude of ways on multiple platforms and devices with as few restrictions as possible (preferably none) - either technical or legal.

Neither is the case for h.264, certainly with regards to HTML5 and internet video.

Reply Parent Score: 1