Slashdot Mirror
Examining the HTML 5 Video Codec Debate
Ars Technica has a great breakdown of the codec debate for the HTML 5 video element. Support for the new video element seems to be split into two main camps, Ogg Theora and H.264, and the inability to find a solution has HTML 5 spec editor Ian Hickson throwing in the towel. "Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor and explained how the present impasse will influence the HTML 5 standard. Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora. Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs, which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg. 'After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately, on the situation regarding codecs for and in HTML5, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship,' Hickson wrote. 'I have therefore removed the two subsections in the HTML5 spec in which codecs would have been required, and have instead left the matter undefined.'"
Do we use an inferior standard or a closed standard?
Maybe "implementation dependent" is the term we're after.
http://xiph.org/quicktime/
Adds support for Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora to QuickTime (which is used for nearly all media playback on OSX). Easy to install (but could be made easier easily - such as making into a .pkg), and makes Safari 4 work with <video> and Theora.
Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec? HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (<img>, <object>) and it should *not* start now.
"Microsoft has not commented on their intent to support <video> at all."
Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".
Good point. Let me fix that: "Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor that is likely to get off their ass and release something relevant to this issue within the decade". Does that about cover it?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Because you end up with the craptastic situation like IE6 where they sort of support PNG but not really because they don't support transparency. If there isn't universal browser support for a format it might as well not even exist / be an option because you can't use it. If you have to code for IE6 you can't use transparent PNGs can you? So what difference does it make that you can "use any format?"
If we go this route with video what options are left? Stick with flash? Encode everything in two different codecs and *hope* that the browsers all support one of the two? I don't know about you but I think those options suck.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Because people shouldn't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.
So you include the codecs with the browser. Since you don't want to include every codec known to man, you pick one. Or several, as the case may be...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:
Video For Everybody
It works on older browsers too, falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to. You simply provide it one .mp4, and one .ogg file and it uses which is best.
Don't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible, which may then see further solution on a final standard.
I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must. I also think Apple should support ogg too, but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hardware encoders/decoders would come pretty fast if Theora was made the HTML5 standard.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
You misunderstand the nature of HTML5 standardization process. Unlike previous HTML iterations, which were designed by W3C committee which largely did not intersect with people who actually implemented it, HTML5 is a vendor-driven effort that had only recently came under the aegis of W3C (after the latter's XHTML 2.0 died a quick and painless death). Since it's vendor-driven, it's going to be exactly what the vendors can agree upon - no more, and no less.
Well, with a "submarine" patent, the patent holder will typically wait until the "invention" is in common use, THEN sue for retroactive damages. Those sorts of awards can get very expensive.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
The fear is that the "good format" in this case will be H.264, and once it will stick and become de facto standard, we'll have the same mess as with GIF all over again - since FOSS browsers won't be able to support it legally (at least in U.S.), nor free content creation/editing tools.
The fact that it's open source or royalty free doesn't mean there are no patent trolls ready to file a lawsuit once Apple or Microsoft use it.
It would be nice if Congress could pass a law for proposed standards to give patent trolls a 6 (or 3) month period to announce any infringement or forever hold their peace.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
I could swear I already saw this a few days ago here, on Slashdot. And indeed:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs?from=rss
It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support. And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?
No need for conspiracy theories. Theora doesn't solve any problems for Apple.
Theora won't work in iPods, iPhones, or AppleTV.
And Theora is less efficient than even H.264 baseline, and so would raise their (presumably quite substantial) bandwidth costs for delivering video content.
My video compression blog
you forgot this one, if a sleeper patent hits h.264, DivX, VC1, or any of the codecs then in every case it will have to be dealt with. Sorry, I just don't buy the bit about only one codec, the open source one, being subject to patent issues.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Since it is under a BSD style license it doesn't require either the GPL of the LGPL code so your whole argument disappears into a void of stupidity.
And yes they published the spec of the format and yes it is up to date. And yes it isn't a standard from whatever standards body you like this week which in practice means you don't have to pay for it.
Not only is it license encumbered, but next year they could change the licensing so that websites hosting h264 video will be charged broadcast fees.
Again you fail at the simplest of things. Where would one expect to find a specification for a free format? Probably under "Documentation", right? And what would you know it is in fact there: http://www.theora.org/doc/. But even if there weren't that wouldn't even matter, since there is a BSD licensed reference implementation of the decoder which would do well enough as a specification.
Now as for that hardware thing -- no, Theora does not and probably will never have hardware decoding support and that is a reasonable reason for excluding it from being a requirement for the HTML5 standard. As are the bandwidth issues; Youtube is bleeding enough money already.
But what I do not get is why you suddenly get all defensive. Did Xiph.org kick your dog or what?
I am not affiliated with Xiph.org in any way what so ever. I just happen to be able to read what it says on their webpage loud and clear. Something that you seem to fail at.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/
Dilbert RSS feed