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."

16 of 395 comments (clear)

  1. Figures by strikeleader · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And once again the public loses

    1. Re:Figures by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but how is it a loss for the public to remove any reference to specific media formats from a specification that should by its nature be format independent? Ogg had no more business being in an HTML spec than WMV, RA, or some Flash-based video player.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Figures by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but how is it a loss for the public to remove any reference to specific media formats from a specification that should by its nature be format independent? Ogg had no more business being in an HTML spec than WMV, RA, or some Flash-based video player.

      Methinks you are being a bit myopic here. Where would we be today if the HTML spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the image tag? Can you imagine a huge mishmash of competing proprietary image standards, many of which wouldn't even render in free software browsers like Firefox? That would be a nightmare, but unfortunately, that's what's currently happening with video. Much like the image standard in HTML means that any browser can display anything in an image tag, so too must the video standard in HTML guarantee that any browser can display anything in a video tag. That's what the proposed specification is about.

      The web isn't just about static text. It's about images too (and thankfully, the HTML specification handles them well). And what with the increasing prevalence of broadband connections, it's becoming more about videos each and every day. We need a standard that actually works for videos. Because what we currently have is broken. HTML is a standard; it only works when it specifies exactly which formats are to be used, and thus, what must be implemented by browsers. Ogg/Theora must stay in the HTML5 specification, or there will be no end in sight for the web's video woes.

    3. Re:Figures by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure if you are trying to be ironic here or if you are actually serious.

      Where would we be today if the HTML spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the image tag?

      No HTML specification does that. The farthest any HTML specification goes is mentioning that they are common formats.

      Can you imagine a huge mishmash of competing proprietary image standards, many of which wouldn't even render in free software browsers like Firefox?

      Yes, in fact that's precisely the state of the world today. For instance, Firefox doesn't support JPEG 2000.

      That would be a nightmare

      Not really, because all major browsers support JPEG and PNG, despite the fact that the HTML specifications haven't recommended them.

      HTML is a standard; it only works when it specifies exactly which formats are to be used

      It does no such thing. For instance, it doesn't require browsers to implement JavaScript, it provides scripting language-independent hooks that can be used to support JavaScript or any other scripting language. It doesn't require browsers to implement CSS, it provides stylesheet language-independent hooks that can be used to support CSS or any other stylesheet language. It doesn't require browsers to implement JPEG or PNG, it provides image format-independent hooks that can be used to support JPEG, PNG or any other image format. And the HTML 5 specification is taking the exact same approach by not requiring Theora or Vorbis, but providing codec-independent hooks that can be used to support Theora, Vorbis or any other codec.

      The choice of video and audio codecs is outside the scope of the HTML 5 specification. Attempting to more tightly couple independent formats is myopic.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  2. Well, these companies show their true colors by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Well, these companies show their true colors by base3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've always said that Apple is just like Microsoft, only not as good at it. Of course, saying so is a ticked to -1 as Apple apologists empty their clips of mod points into any post that doesn't hail Steve Jobs as the savior of computing. But I've got the karma :).

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  3. Not a requirement by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Note that HTML5 in no way required Ogg

    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
  4. Re:If HTML5 gets adopted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. attention that mpeg4 guy by trybywrench · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:attention that mpeg4 guy by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      MPEG4 is patent encumbered and does require license fees. While there may be patents for Ogg Theora, On2 has made it clear Theora is a genuinely open standard that doesn't require payment of royalties to them.

      MPEG4 is only open in certain senses. It is not usable from the point of view of a web standardization body, given the dependence the web has on the free software world.

      BTW, DECS runs the supremely awful "RoughlyDrafted" website, a kind of brain damaged Apple advocacy thing. I'd take anything he writes with a pinch of salt.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. This is why zeal matters by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:An alternative... by Whatanut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So... are you a developer for inkscape or something? Beyond the first few sentences that just turned into an inkscape advertisement.

    --

    yvan eht nioj
  8. Huh? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Huh? by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Have you quite finished? Geez, it's a wonder multimedia-based services like YouTube even work on... just about every browser on the planet.

      YouTube works? Are you joking? Firefox crashes on me every time I view a YouTube video thanks to the wonderfully crappy proprietary, closed source Flash plugin for Firefox on GNU/Linux. It doesn't work at all. Using Ogg/Theora in a video tag, on the other hand, would work perfectly.

      Closed source solutions like Flash aren't solutions at all. Flash isn't even a video format. It's an animated vector format that's been used as a hack to deliver raster video. It's far from the ideal solution; the only reason it was ever used is because it is relatively widespread. "Relatively." There's still a good number of us who are left out in the cold.

    2. Re:Huh? by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have you quite finished? Geez, it's a wonder multimedia-based services like YouTube even work on... just about every browser on the planet.

      No, they don't. Try a 64-bit Linux, any distro, amongst many other examples. And no, writing entire 32-bit emulator plugins so that the stupidity which is Flash can run in them does not constitute "working" anymore than running VMWare makes Autocad work on Linux.

      The Web-using public has proven itself quite capable of adopting new technologies that serve their purposes, and working on the basis of popular de facto standards. If any proprietary technology ceases to serve the needs of the Web-browsing public, that technology will most likely be replaced in fairly short order by another that does serve the public need. This sort of thing has been happening since the dawn of browsers and the old IE vs. Netscape browser wars.

      Bullshit. The "web-using public's" 95%+ membership is comprised of people who would upon seeing "this website needs the The Up-Your-Ass Shit-o-Matic Plugin to Enhance Your Experience" would go "Duh, I better click OK!".

      Quality or needs of the public have nothing to do with any of it. Needs of the various idiots attempting to control the public via means such as Flash-only sites have everything to do with it. That is why the public is not involved in protesting Ogg, corporations are.

      There are advantages to having a truly open standard, but for something that evolves as fast as the Web, we've seen time and again that de facto standards that are technically sensible and practically useful are way more valuable than any formal document produced by a standards body.

      More bullshit. If it weren't for open standards, the only "web" browser in existence would browse Microsoft "enhanced" HTML. The de-facto, secret, proprietary, patent-encumbered standards, with players available for only a small fraction of platforms are not "sensible" in any way, shape or form.

      This whole discussion sounds a lot like people who like a relatively unpopular format bitching because they were hoping their preference would be forced on the rest of the world based on politics rather than technical merit, and they lost the argument.

      Politics? Your entire argument can be summarized as "Everyone should use IE and commercial plugins on either Windows (or possibly, grudgingly, Mac)! Everyone who doesn't is a bitter, unpopular political loser!"

  9. Ogg/Theora only poor against impossible options. by a+known+emus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.