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 421733
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 06:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 1-2 Punch"
Member since:

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:
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

RE[7]: 1-2 Punch
by tyrione on Fri 30th Apr 2010 11:43 in reply to "RE[6]: 1-2 Punch"
tyrione Member since:

HTML5 is a royalty free specification.

Video codecs aren't officially defined as which ones are part of the HTML5 Specification.

Same goes for the audio codecs.

Even the HTML5 spec gives several examples on how to leverage the source element for your site with various codecs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: 1-2 Punch
by segedunum on Fri 30th Apr 2010 12:02 in reply to "RE[7]: 1-2 Punch"
segedunum Member since:

HTML5 is a royalty free specification.

Video codecs aren't officially defined as which ones are part of the HTML5 Specification.

Yer, and? That's why we currently have this large debate about it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: 1-2 Punch
by 1c3d0g on Sat 1st May 2010 16:03 in reply to "RE[6]: 1-2 Punch"
1c3d0g Member since:

Lemur2: Well f--king said.

Edited 2010-05-01 16:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2