Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Examining the HTML 5 Video Codec Debate

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the we'll-cooperate-and-do-it-my-way dept.

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.'"

4 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. Apple and Xiph by _Hiro_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    Perhaps someone on the Xiph board did something to one of Apple's Media guys when they were kids or something?

    --
    -Pope Peter Porker, S.O.W., K.M.K.R., U.G.O.A., F.S.G.S.D.
  2. Re:It's a toughy by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think Microsoft has lost the media wars, and they pretty well know it. (admittedly, just a guess) Expect their products to support H264 and AAC. The bigger fly in their ointment is probably improved web standards in general. They've been gearing up to fight Adobe (Silverlight vs. Flash) for the proprietary "rich web" market, and if HTML/CSS gets rich enough that we don't need a proprietary plugin, that might not end up being a market worth winning.

  3. Re:It's a toughy by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Flash, to my recollection, was pretty much limited to ads and mediocre games before YouTube came along. If YouTube dumped flash, would it still be deemed necessary by the average user? Certainly iPhone users seem to be getting along without it...

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. Re:It's a toughy by a2wflc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > I don't think Flash will go away overnight.
    I don't think it will go away at all
    Not when agencies can charge $100s for a 100K flash app that does something our html contractor could have done in 5 minutes and 2 lines of javascript he found online. (trivial apps like rotating images)

    (Many) Agencies and individuals like to be "experts" on things that take special tools and knowledge so they can charge more.

    LOTS of contractors can do html/css/basic javscript. Not as many can do flash and those who can don't want flash to go away.

    If an agency delivers HTML, there is usually someone in the office who can edit it (change wording, colors, etc). But if you want flash changed, you are more than likely going to need to give the agency more work.