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 421724
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 04:36 UTC 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[7]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 05:00 in reply to "RE[6]: 1-2 Punch"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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


Sorry, I spoke too soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#W3C_standardization_process
The HTML5 specification was adopted as the starting point of the work of the new HTML working group of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 2007. This working group published the First Public Working Draft of the specification on January 22, 2008. The specification is an ongoing work, and is expected to remain so for many years, although parts of HTML5 are going to be finished and implemented in browsers before the whole specification reaches final Recommendation status.

According to the W3C timetable, it is estimated that HTML5 will reach W3C Recommendation by late 2010. However, the First Public Working Draft estimate was missed by 8 months, and Last Call and Candidate Recommendation were expected to be reached in 2008, but as of April 2010 HTML5 is still at Working Draft stage in the W3C. HTML5 has been at Last Call in the WHATWG since October 2009.


It is still a Working Draft. It would seem that some parties have been very successful so far in stonewalling HTML5.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[7]: 1-2 Punch
by henderson101 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 10:50 in reply to "RE[6]: 1-2 Punch"
RE[8]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 11:13 in reply to "RE[7]: 1-2 Punch"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ima stop you there..

Jesus.. please stop quoting 10+ wikipedia articles as "basis" for any argument. You may as well be quoting Uncyclopedia...


Ima stop you there.

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?421733
"Where is it written that it needs to be royalty free to be a standard?

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
"

Despite my very best attempts, even going so far as linking direct to the applicable policy page of the very organisation that is writing the HTML5 specification, I still appear to have somehow failed to stop further idiotic ramblings trying to refute the W3C's requirement that the codec that will be specified within the W3C's HTML5 Recommendation must be royalty-free.

"the web video codec standard MUST be royalty-free"
Caveat: W3C policy will (begrudgingly) allow RAND terms only if there is no royalty-free technology available. In the case of the web video codec and the HTML5 standard, there is at least one suitable royalty-free codec available, so therefore, whichever web video codec is eventually specified in HTML5, it MUST be royalty-free. Therefore, h264 will NOT be that codec.

The policy of the organisation writing the HTML5 specification requires it to be so.

Why do you have such a problem trying to grasp this simple fact?

Edited 2010-04-30 11:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: 1-2 Punch
by tf123 on Sat 1st May 2010 18:10 in reply to "RE[6]: 1-2 Punch"
tf123 Member since:
2010-01-28

But let's note that every time you claim it must be patent-unencumbered, you are lying.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: 1-2 Punch
by modmans2ndcoming on Sun 2nd May 2010 17:14 in reply to "RE[6]: 1-2 Punch"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

It has to be implemented on a Royalty Free Basis... the codec it self does not have to be royalty free, but for implementations involving the web, it has to be.

That means that if it is to be a standard, browser makers and users will not have to pay royalties. MPEG-LA can still push for royalties on content creators and hardware makers.

Reply Parent Score: 2