- From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:56:19 +0100
Dnia 12-12-2007, ?r o godzinie 13:12 -0600, David Hyatt pisze: > On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > > David Hyatt wrote: > > > >> Fear of submarine patents is only one reason Apple is not > >> interested in Theora. There are several other reasons. H.264 is a > >> technically superior solution to Theora. Ignoring IP issues, there > >> would be no reason to pick Theora over H.264. Everyone wants an > >> open freely implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora > >> should automatically be that codec. About the only argument I've > >> heard in favor of Theora is that "it's open", but that is an > >> argument based purely on IP and not on technical merits. > > > > Openness is a prerequisite. Technical adequacy is a prerequisite. > > The technically best solution is not a prerequisite. In case it > > isn't obvious yet, an open, adequate format is preferred over a > > better proprietary one. > > > > I don't think that is obvious at all, especially when the <video> > tag's chief competition, Flash, is using the technically superior > solution. Why would authors switch away from Flash if <video> doesn't > offer any technically compelling reason to switch? For example, because Flash is unavailable or is available in a way that makes it inefficient with respect to open-source engines that can be recompiled and optimised for a particular platform. Chris
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 15:56:19 UTC