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 421781
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment
by tyrione on Fri 30th Apr 2010 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment"
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

"ffmpeg, vlc, and x264 are all legal, so long as you live in a country without software patents.


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.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 12:05 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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.
"

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.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 30th Apr 2010 12:08 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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).

Reply Parent Score: 2