Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:04 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 421781
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"The leaglity or otherwise is not the issue. The issue is that in order to be a web standard, it MUST be royalty-free.
H264 is not royalty-free. Therefore, h264 is not the web standard.
H264 is not royalty-free. Therefore, h264 is not the web standard.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#the-source-element
None of the codecs are part of the Royalty Free HTML5 Specification.
The examples show all sorts of ways for you to host source options and in doing so you leave it up to the client to pick and run one that works. "
This is the (current) fallout from this decision:
http://lwn.net/Articles/340132/
HTML5 is meant to have a codec specified. Originally, prior to that decision made in June 2009, Theora was that codec. Now it has been taken out, and we have the current unacceptable situation.
However, HTML5 is not yet a W3C Recommendation.
(1) If Google release VP8 as royalty-free, then objections against Theora would likely be mooted, and W3C could then stipulate a codec for HTML5 once again (HTML5/VP8).
(2) Alternatively, Theora could improve enough to moot Google's objection, and so remaining dissent (Apple) would be sufficiently insignificant that W3C could re-instate HTML5/Theora.
Those two are the only possible outcomes. HTML5/H264 is NOT an option.
Those two are the only possible outcomes. HTML5/H264 is NOT an option.
It will all depend on Google's decision regarding YouTube. If YouTube switches to Theora or VP8, and serves Flash to everybody else - just you wait how quick Apple and Microsoft will scramble to implement Theora/VP8.
I dislike having to be dependent on Google, but let's hope they do the right thing. Chances are slim, but hey, maybe they'll surprise us.
If not, and we stick to H264, we'll have the Jon Grubers of tomorrow blaming everyone but Apple and Microsoft when the patent shit hits the fan (which it will).





Member since:
2005-11-21
The leaglity or otherwise is not the issue. The issue is that in order to be a web standard, it MUST be royalty-free.
H264 is not royalty-free. Therefore, h264 is not the web standard. "
http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/video.html#the-source-element
None of the codecs are part of the Royalty Free HTML5 Specification.
The examples show all sorts of ways for you to host source options and in doing so you leave it up to the client to pick and run one that works.