W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Mandated Video Format (was: Microsoft has now joined the HTML Working Group)

From: Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 19:38:34 +0200
Message-ID: <af2a8eab0704051038g5daf31a3u40f9dbe3f908b68@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Designating a specific video codec in the HTML spec does seem strange to me.


Creating a <video> element or managing to fix the <object> problems is more
logical from my point of view as a task for this group, and the browser then
should render that video with the help of any active-X, plugin, or codec
installed in the system.

If the browser itself does include the codec that's fine, but any new video
format should provide the proper plugin so current browsers are able to play
that video. Authors aren't gonna use it if they have to create two different
versions of that video: one in the new shiny codec and other in a format so
current browsers can use it. We are talking about video here, so it takes a
lot of space to store those things.

One of the reasons why flash video has become such success it's because
people just had to install the flash plugin or update their version, so
webmasters just had to upload a flash movie and it doesn't matter the
browser used by their visitors (and although the Flash plugin didn't play
video in Linux IIRC, it was just a matter of time for Adobe to fix that
problem and the webmasters again didn't have to care about the problem)

The codec used in the flash videos didn't matter, and no browser vendor is
afraid of IP issues with flash video.

Regards

2007/4/5, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>:
>
>
> Hi-
>
> Apologies if this has already been discussed. Note that I'm not talking
> about where the video would be used ('object', 'video', 'media',
> 'svg:video', or 'p' elements), but rather the format itself.
>
> I agree that a standard cross-platform, cross-browser video format is
> desperately needed.  Right now, everyone is using proprietary standards,
> which is just unacceptable as a sustainable solution.
>
> Matthew Raymond wrote:
> >
> > 1) What's your position on <video> and using Ogg Theora as the format
> > that all browsers SHOULD support?
>
> Has Xiph done an exhaustive due-diligence patent search on Theora?  I
> know that rights to VP3 have been waived, but we don't want any nasty
> surprises.
>
> Maybe the big players could help with this, by devoting some resources
> to finding and promoting the best unencumbered video format?
>
> I'm cool with Ogg Theora if it turns out to be unencumbered, but I'd
> also be open to any other suggestions.  For me, the key factors are that
> it should be royalty-free, able to implemented across devices (such as
> on a mobile phone), and compatible with SMIL (is this a real
> consideration?).
>
> Regards-
> -Doug
>
> Research and Standards Engineer
> 6th Sense Analytics
> www.6thsenseanalytics.com
> mobile: 919.824.5482
>
>
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2007 17:38:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC