Slashdot Mirror
Ogg Vorbis / Theora Language Removed From HTML5 Spec
Rudd-O writes "It's official. Ogg technology has been removed from the HTML5 spec, after Ian caved in the face of pressure from Apple and Nokia. Unless massive pressure is exerted on the HTML5 spec editing process, the Web authoring world will continue to endure our modern proprietary Tower of Babel. Note that HTML5 in no way required Ogg (as denoted by the word 'should' instead of 'must' in the earlier draft). Adding this to the fact that there are widely available patent-free implementations of Ogg technology, there is really no excuse for Apple and Nokia to say that they couldn't in good faith implement HTML5 as previously formulated."
And once again the public loses
We don't all live in this world and know the players.
MSFT isn't the only one who pulls crap like this. AAPL and NOK would gladly do the same things if they can get away with it.
So what's the point in having it in there then? The vendors who don't want to implement it won't, and the people wanting an open baseline won't get one. The recommendation did nothing for openness or interoperability, it just gave people an official excuse to bash vendors that won't implement it.
All other things being equal, a smaller specification that everybody can agree on is better than one with unnecessary, contentious recommendations. There was never any need for this recommendation, it just bloated the already massive specification.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I don't see that the edit makes much of a difference. Even if HTML5 says that user agents SHOULD support Ogg, it doesn't mean they all will. And even though HTML 5 doesn't mention Ogg, it doesn't mean they all won't.
As every web developer knows, what you can and cannot do on a web site has less to do with what the standards say, and more to do with what browsers decide to support. There are web standards that have been specified for years that developers still cannot use (for example, much of the CSS in the Acid2 test), and there are technologies that get widely used before being standardized (for example, XMLHttpRequest).
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Having the web be just like TV is exactly what large companies want. The marketting tards want you to see their company website exactly the way they think it's supposed to look. They certainly don't want people filtering content or anything like that. Why do you think Flash only websites are becoming so popular? The problem is mostly due to management and marketting types having no idea how the internet works.
On the plus side, it might be a pretty good filter all by itself. The second you see a site using HTML5, you automatically know it's probably not worth browsing.
I have nothing against the Ogg Vorbis format, but how is it the business of an HTML spec as to what file format is used by external links? This is no better than the spec mandating we use PNG instead of JPG. Developers will use whatever makes sense to them and it isn't really the spec's business to mandate what is really outside of its scope.
In the last story about this there was a guy who made a really good comment about mpeg4 and how Ogg/Theora isn't actually that good for HTML5. He basically said that the video codec was patent encumbered but the company who owned it made it available to the public under a free nonrevocable license since it was DOA anyway when compared to mpeg4. see here:
"Ogg's video codec is Theora, which was proprietary. On2 developed it as its closed competition to MPEG-4's H.263 (DivX) and H.264 (AVC) codecs, alongside other competing proprietary codecs from Real and Microsoft (WMV). The winner to shake out of all that competition has been the MPEG-4 standard, which includes both a container and different sets of codecs. MPEG-4 is open and supported by lots of companies, and is also supported by FOSS (x264 is among the best implementations)." - DECS
I get the feeling that if people would actually sit down and look at the issue objectively then it would be obvious that Ogg/Theora being included in the HTML5 spec isn't that great of an idea. The problem is the Ogg crowd has a huge chip on their shoulder since no one has really given them the time of day. So, here's a chance for them to get some validation for all their hard work but they've been cut out yet again so everyone's all up in arms.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Oddities of writing style aside (and possible DRM agenda nonwithstanding) I actually thought the idea suggested in the original Nokia paper to use older techniques that are or will very soon be based on expired patents was a pretty good one.
Whatever we may want to think, it is true that someone COULD challenge Ogg Vorbis on patent grounds, valid or not. A technique 20 years old and based on expired patents is absolutely unambiguous - the patent office itself is the documentation that the technique is now unrestricted.
For most of what is done on the web the older technologies would work just fine. They are also mainstream, which means they stand a better chance of being used. The HTML standards process is not strong enough to push forward Ogg Vorbis, IMO.
Remember, this is big corporate lawyer turf here. Ogg Vorbis is thought to be free of patent claims but there is no way to prove that. Expired patents are the safest possible way to proceed.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Ogg Theora sucks but Ogg Vorbis and Speex are, arguably, the best codecs for audio.
I'd rather have a spec that clearly defines how content is embedded, rather than what content to embed. Specifying a particular format reduces freedom. There's nothing to say you can't use Ogg. The only benefit to having Ogg in the spec itself would be to get the format more well-known, but that should happen on its merits, not because a standards body decreed it so. What is unfortunate in this instance is just how much sway a single company or pair of companies can have over a spec as a whole, and how quickly they can make changes happen. It just smacks of impropriety. I don't think anyone's going to argue that H.264 is a bad codec, but isn't the point of a standard to ensure interoperability? Why do these companies have so much clout?
I am so sick and tired of people saying silly things like "Its only an operating system," or "use what's best," or other justifications for taking crap that we MUST STAND UP AGAINST.
Every little one of these things matters, they all add up like links in a chain. There are people actively trying to destroy freedom and they are doing it slowly with incremental steps. This is just another step. I'm sorry, if you can't be bothered to take an active participation in protesting and exploring alternate systems, then you are letting everyone down. You know the expression: "No one snow flake in an avalanche feels any responsibility."
The *big* picture is democracy itself. Once the information is controlled, the people are controlled. Make no mistake, people are actively working against the free exchange of information. While most are just working for their own self interests, there are others capitalizing on these actions in more nefarious ways.
I know you think this is tin foil hat stuff, but look around, look at what's happening. We have to work against these sorts of things because rust never sleeps.
So... are you a developer for inkscape or something? Beyond the first few sentences that just turned into an inkscape advertisement.
yvan eht nioj
I have news for you: HTML is a format!
By being half-assed and not specifying a standard for a widely used aspect of the web browsing experience, what is in effect happening is a de-facto endorsement of all of those pet proprietary formats at the expense of clarity and allowing the various companies to rape the public with a million of buggy plug-ins, each with its own flavour of the week. The very anathema of a "standard".
It does not matter if Ogg/Theora were not the most advanced and efficient of technologies as neither is the whole concept of HTML. What mattered was estabilishment of an open standard which would cut down on the chaos of inane plug-ins and made it impossible for companies like CNN to purposefully block all web browsers other then IE from accessing their video contents, as is the case now.
It's true that H.264 is better than Theora. But H.264 has zero chance of being made the baseline because it is expensive as hell and certainly not free as the W3C requires.
Theora is substantially better than any other codec which has a chance of being included. As such it's silly to say that Theora shouldn't be used because it isn't the best... thats a bit like saying "I won't drive any car but a Ferrari" when all you can afford is a used Ford Escort.
Obviously most implementations will also include a better codec than Theora, but Theora is a generally respectable codec at web streaming bitrates and it will provide a viable option for those who can't or won't pay the licensing fees for better codecs. In other words, Theora will be a reasonable baseline which is all it's supposted to be in this context.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Theora will also help keep the licensing costs down for better codecs. Everyone Wins, except companies that make money licensing codecs... and in the long run they'll probably win too, since web video that Just Works will increase the popularity of web video.
So Ogg will never make it back into the HTML5 spec.
As much as I'd like to see OGG gain momentum over proprietary formats, I think specifying a format is beyond the scope of HTML. If being HTML compliant meant that you had to use Theora and Vorbis for video and audio respectively, I could see that somewhat stifling innovation. If someone comes up with a new concept for delivering web based video or audio more efficiently than can be done with OGG, they'd have to disregard HTML standards in order to implement it. This means that either the standard largely gets ignored, or people forgo progress in favor of the standard.
No one actually knows what the patent status of any codec is. More generally, it is virtually impossible to write any computer program longer than "hello world" and be sure it doesn't infringe on someone's patent.
What we do know, though, is an attempt has been made to find patents that Vorbis infringes, and that attempt came up with nothing. Furthermore, Vorbis has been deployed and used for many years now, and no one has sued. As for Theora, it is known to use some patents (with permission), and it's been out a few years too, without those patents being contested, or On2 getting sued. Yes, a submarine could still come up, but all codecs share that risk.
That isn't to say Theora is a good codec (though Vorbis sure as hell is), but the patent argument doesn't work.
We don't, but there should be standards for multimedia, since we already have stuff like IMG and EMBED and those things just aren't going to go away. Right now, we have an absolute travesty for video embedded on web pages (nearly a worst-case scenario), where multimedia is being played by Flash plugins! The user has absolutely no control over playback software and its capabilities.
Imagine if embedded video were handled the way embedded images are, where the user agent developer could add features, remove annoyances, hand it off to the OS' data type, whatever. Oh, and imagine if user agent developers could fix security holes, instead of having to wait for Adobe. Flash must die, and multimedia standards for web-embedded content would be a great bag of nails for the accursed coffin.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'm a huge FOSS buff
reeaaaally !?you speak against FOSS, based on some technical deficiencies which arent even that big
may i ask which part of "freedom comes first" you dont get? with "supporters" like you, FOSS does not need enemies.
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
MPEG is the name of a working group. Some of the formats they have standardised contain patented technology. It's not accurate to say "MPEG contains patents".
In Hickson explained Apple's situation quite well:
While many codecs are patent-encumbered, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is equally risky to implement them for any particular organisation.
HTML hates anthropomorphism.
Nobody is saying that the HTML 5 specification should recommend a patented codec. They are saying that it shouldn't recommend any particular codec.
No, they were always patent-encumbered, it's just that people didn't know about it until UNISYS started cracking down on infringers.
I'm sure they would, but this isn't about picking Quicktime over Ogg. You can't win this argument by saying how bad Quicktime, MPEG or anything else might be, because the alternative people are proposing is no recommendation, not a recommendation for competing formats.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
I don't know where this myth arose that previous versions of HTML specified "standard" image formats, but it's just not true. Read the specifications yourself.
Not specifying any particular video codec for <video> is exactly the same as how images were handled. Including a recommendation for Theora is a change from how images were handled.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
You seem to be living in a dreamland of some sort. I'll try to help you out.
> It goes beyond "FUD" to simply label some technology as proprietary when it is not.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but many people (perhaps you too) assume that Ogg Theora is patent-free, so let's go over this again: Ogg Theora (specifically the Theora part) is _not_ patent-free for the bazillionth time.
> What Apple and Nokia have done is damage to the future development of the public internet through blatant lies.
Actually, what they have done is prevent a specific video codec from becoming a requirement in a markup language standard, thus maintaining free competition for all codecs and allowing them to compete on their own merits. Whatever their motives are, this seems like a good idea to me.
> I'm not sure how it would be defined legally, but fraud is a word that comes to mind.
Fraud? Unlikely. It seems you should get a clue before you post nonsense that people might believe. It seems many Ogg users are disgruntled that their pet codec won't get a free pass. Vent your frustrations on a pillow. It helps. The current HTML standard has no image or media requirements and the internet works just fine. Video codec requirements have no place in a markup language specification. It would be just as bad if Apple/Nokia successfully push their own pet codecs into the standard (which hasn't happened yet), but as it is now there is no use throwing a tissy fit over Ogg Theora being rejected where it also doesn't belong.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
because the alternative people are proposing is no recommendation, not a recommendation for competing formats.
'people' is a funny way of referencing several rather loud business organizations. You make it sound like 'the people have been heard on the subject' or something.
Further, you're correct that Apple and Nokia want no standard. They'd rather have the freedom to troll around in the chaos.
It's disconcerting how many people have barely hidden partisan points of view favoring commercial outfits in these discussions. It's as if shilling was an acceptable part of geek/nerd culture. However, it is not.