Re: MPEG2-TS activity in Bugzilla

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Giladi <alex.giladi@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> > It is codec-independent -- it's only concerned with use of MPEG-2
> Transport Stream as a container.
>
> Right, but usually there is some concrete motivation behind
> introducing support codec-independent containers. I'm curious what the
> concrete motivation is.
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > Could you supply some reference(s) [to bugzilla entries]?
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17094
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14492#c6
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14422#c3


thanks


> > Do you have any comment on the use of MPEG-2 video?
>
> Personally, I think it would be a terrible idea to introduce an MPEG-2
> video dependency to the Web platform.


agreed (there should be no mandatory dependency from HTML5 spec or its
extensions) to MPEG-2; i.e., there should be no normative statement that
translates to 'MPEG-2 *must* be supported in a UA'; however, that doesn't
mean we can't have text prescribing behavior in the case that MPEG-2 *is*
supported;


>
> > In general, it is a commercial video requirement to support
> > MPEG-2 video, either in PS or TS forms (or both).
>
> It appears that in the above sentence "commercial video" is not an
> euphemism for content that Hollywood requires to be wrapped in DRM,
> since H.264 plus DRM already seems to be used for that case.
>
> What sort of use case, concretely, does "commercial video" mean in the
> above sentence? (I have my guesses, but I'd rather not proceed to
> discuss strawmen without confirming first.)
>

to elaborate, the requirement is based on legacy usage, and not related to
distribution agreements