- From: Lars Gunther <gunther@keryx.se>
- Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:51:15 +0100
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Time to re-open this can of worms... The video codec issue have been debated in a thousand mail and blog posts and the two camps seem more firmly entrenched than ever. However, the recent debate spurred by Google and Vimeo starting to offer "HTML5 video" makes it imperative that W3C steps up to the plate. It is by now 100 % proven that H.264 is and never will be an option for free and interoperable video on the web. I suppose you've all seen this, which is the final nail in the coffin - debate is over! http://bemasc.net/wordpress/2010/02/02/no-you-cant-do-that-with-h264/ Now it comes down to a matter of PRIORITIES! A. Is hardware acceleration, a fixable problem, worth more than openness, an unfixable problem for H.264. H.264 is is only fixable if: 1. The USA, Germany and a few more countries change their stupid laws that allow software patents. (Not going to happen.) 2. MPEG-LA releases H.264 to the public, like Linus Torvalds has done with a few software patents he holds on behalf of Linux. (Patents received in order to make sure no troll gets them and forbids usage in Linux.) Once again - this is not going to happen. For the web and the W3C there simply can not be any value that takes precedence over openness. I say that it is a violation of the entire reason the W3C exists! To add further to that thought: One of the points about HTML5 has always been that the spec should include everything necessary for anyone to write a NEW browser from scratch. It has been a guiding principle that the spec should NOT be written in such a way as to make the current browser vendors keep their positions. It should ensure that browsers compete on quality alone. I.e. it should ensure free and open competition and nothing else. If some vendors disagree, well, tough luck! B. Is submarine patent FUD worth more than ACTUAL EXISTING patent realities? And isn't it one of W3C's points that if a spec is published as CR all patent holders are obliged to protest at that moment - or forever hold their breath! If the spec mandates Theora I think e.g. Apple will be held accountable by an army of bloggers that calls them out every time they say a product does "HTML5 video", but only using H.264. Eventually this will tricke down to tech journalists and finally to the public. Every time someone looks at a support chart like http://www.deepbluesky.com/blog/-/browser-support-for-css3-and-html5_72/ there will NOT be a check mark next to Safari and in a while they will feel the pressure to add it. The same is true for Microsoft, should that discussion really come up in earnest. HTML5 has gotten enough traction and mindshare by now to that I firmly believe that the "paper spec" argument no longer is valid. There will be pressure on vendors just by having something in the spec! And, BTW, Nokia has decided to support all ogg-formats in their next release of Maemo. I suppose they have softened up a bit... Bottom line: I propose that Theora should be re-instated in the spec as a required baseline codec, to be supported by all browsers. And the time to do it is now. -- Lars Gunther http://keryx.se/ http://twitter.com/itpastorn/ http://itpastorn.blogspot.com/
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2010 13:51:49 UTC