W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:56:02 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0907022056m247115feh440cf31ec8bec41b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, robert@ocallahan.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>>
>> It can only be satisfied if you seriously consider H.264 as a
>> candidate for a baseline codec. Is Apple really proposing that? I had
>> assumed not given that Apple was a very strong proponent of the
>> current RF license policy that W3C uses.
>
> I don't think there is currently a viable candidate for baseline codec,
> without some change in the technology landscape, so the current status quo
> of not defining one seems like the best we can do.
>
> Apple is working to change the landscape. And I know that Mozilla is too,
> though perhaps with different solutions in mind. Mozilla is also trying to
> force their preferred solution via the spec, without actually resolving the
> underlying issues. I don't think this is helpful to actually achieving
> interoperability. Requirements don't go away just because of spec language.

How is Apple working to change the landscape?

First of all putting theora as a baseline in the spec isn't forcing
anyone to do anything. If for whatever reason you can't implement the
spec at the current time (due to hardware not existing in devices that
you care about) then simply don't implement in these devices yet. For
authors that is no different from you not having had the engineering
resources to implement a feature yet, and no different to having to
support old UAs.

Second, building momentum behind Theora will actually go a long way
towards solving the underlying issue. The main advantage H.264 has is
its popularity. The popularity is why there is hardware support, and
popularity is (if I understand you correctly) why you aren't worried
about unknown patents.

> An independent patent review is one step that might appreciably change
> the landscape. Perhaps Theora advocates or a neutral party like the W3C can
> arrange such a thing.

Would Apple support such an arrangement? And would an outcome of such
a search affect Apples willingness to implement Theora?

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 03:57:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC