Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jan 2011 20:31 UTC
Internet & Networking And the fallout from Google's decision to drop H.264 support from its Chrome web browser continues to fall. Opera's Haavard - speaking on his own behalf - slammed the article which appeared on Ars Technica earlier today, while Micrsoft's Tim Sneath likened Google's move to the president of the United States banning English in favour of Esperanto. Also within, a rant (there's no other word for it) about the disrespect displayed by H.264 proponents towards the very open source community that saved and invigorated the web.
Thread beginning with comment 458099
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
avgalen
Member since:
2010-09-23

Chrome having H.264 first, then removing it and then adding it again if Apple and Microsoft do something? No, no, no. That is starting to sound more and more like blackmail.

The web is full of non-open and non-free technologies and there are many ways around it and the web is doing just fine. I know that royalty-free is what the W3C requires and it is a great idea, but the web isn't just what W3C wants. For that, the W3C is FAR too slow, indecisive and fickle. A few years ago the direction was to go XHTML, not HTML5. The web itself and browsermakers are the ones that really dictate the future.

From a purely technical point of view I would like browsers to NOT support any image/audio/video technology at all. I would like them to rely on technology that is already present in the OS. That way H.264/WebM should only be included in the OS and can then be played by all media players, including browsers. Improvements will only need to be applied once and licenses wouldn't be a problem for most users. As far as I understand Chrome is actually capable of this, as will IE and Firefox be. If it does work that way, I would actually welcome all browsers to drop support for H.264, WebM, Theora, etc and would hope that plugins/codecs for OS's would be made available until these technologies get included in the OS by default.

I would like (web)video to "just work", without the need for Flash (clientside) or re-encoding (serverside)

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I know that royalty-free is what the W3C requires and it is a great idea, but the web isn't just what W3C wants.


This is not the way it works. HTML5 is a W3C standard. It is a standard written by W3C. The HTML5 standard therefore IS just what W3C wants.

What the W3C wants is driven by many, many more participants across the industry other than just Microsoft and Apple. What the W3C wants is that technologies used within W3C standards must be royalty-free. W3C have an industry-wide consensus on this policy. All other W3C standards conform to this policy.

HTML5 is a W3C standard. Therefore, HTML5 must not include technologies that are not royalty-free.

That is the way that it works.

Edited 2011-01-15 13:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

There is NO current standard for video on the web! The only standard is what people did because there was (and is) no standard. THAT is why Flash-Video, H.264 and other things browser makers and content providers came up with (realplayer, activex mediaplayer, quicktime) had to be used and are now in use. This has been a PITA for the last 10 years.

http://www.w3.org/standards/techs/html#w3c_all
HTML 5 is listed as a working draft on January 13. It isn't a recommendation or standard at all.

Dropping support for something that is used right now, to support something that will be part of a future standard is a powerplay.

(I am really hoping that MPEG-LA will shock the world by saying "royalty-free for web-use". If that happens, would there still be a need for WebM/Theora?)

Reply Parent Score: 1