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."

Comments

Ogg mad!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ogg the cavemen break Apple and Nokia heads with open source CD!

An alternative...

[drakaan]

Instead of specifying a specific format, just specify the salient details...how about "...MUST use a non-patent-encumbered format that is released under an OSI-approved license...". Well, not that, per-se, but you get my drift.

Re:An alternative...

[Whatanut]

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

If HTML5 gets adopted

[Anonymous Coward]

there are bigger problems than Ogg!

For one, it will mean the death of any lightweight web browser. Web will become something like a TV where you are fed with content you cannot filter (because the TV is too complex to hack). Monopoly through complexity.

A simple new format that is designed from the start for vector graphics and that doesn't try to be backwards compatible with HTML would be the best way for the new web.

Re:If HTML5 gets adopted

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

...now that I read the changes...

[drakaan]

I see that what I just suggested is exactly the change they made. I'm fine with that...off to tag the front-page article with "badsummary"

Re:Well, these companies show their true colors

[base3]

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 :).

Doesn't make sense...

[binaryspiral]

If the format is free of patents, and is essentially open source (released under the BSD license)... how can Nokia shake its finger around and threaten people?

This wouldn't be a story if Microsoft had done it, trying to force WMP codecs into the standard - I'm actually kind of surprised they hadn't yet... but Nokia? wtf

Not a requirement

[Bogtha]

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.

The actual mail on the HTML-wg mailing list...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to point out what it currently happening, here is the mail from Ian Hickson from this morning:

"I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the HTML5
spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a useful
interoperable conclusion. When a codec is found that is mutually
acceptable to all major parties I will update the spec to require that
instead and then reply to all the pending feedback on video codecs.

    http://www.whatwg.org/issues/#graphics-video-codec
"

The title of the news is a bit misleading :) In other words "temporarily removed until a consensus has been found".

FUD FUD FUD

[a known emus]

This is a point by point reply to your FUD.

• Theora is almost an order of magnitude better performing that H.261 and this is a critical difference for web video.
• No one actually knows what the patent status of any software is! ... In fact, several paid up licensees of mpeg codecs have been sued for patent infringement over these codecs *and lost*, so it's hard to argue that those codecs are better off.
• It's true that Theora isn't very widely adopted, but it has been shipped by Linux distributions for years, so there has been plenty of opportunities for people to sue over patents. Theora is used by Wikipedia, one of the most viewed websites in the world. Of course, Vorbis is orders of magnitude better on this point.
• What are you Nokia? An expensive and heavily patented codec like H.264 is not "open" in any meaningful sense. It's true that Ogg/Theora+Vorbis is not yet amazingly popular, but that is part of the point of standards. There is a chicken and egg, and first-mover takes all problem for file formats and standards help fix that problem.
• Why does HTML have an image tag? What would the world be like if images on the web required various incompatible proprietary plugins? Why should video and audio be any different from still media?

Re:Figures

[Bogtha]

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.