- From: Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:42:16 +0100
2007-12-14 02:40 Ian Hickson:
> I do not believe anyone has suggested we use H.264 as the common
> codec.
I would support it as *a* common codec, if it only /must/ be
supported (transparently) when an underlying (plugin) framework,
operating system or hardware provides it, and otherwise only /should/
be supported. The same applies to other formats from MPEG and Ogg alike.
That leaves the encoding side, though.
> As far as I can tell, there are no satisfactory codecs today.
For several, but not all definitions of 'satisfactory', yes.
> If we are to make progress, we need to change the landscape.
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!? (Attributed to
Einstein.)
> * Make significant quantities of compelling content available
> using one
> of the royalty-free codecs,
You Tube (or porn) is more important than Wikipedia in this regard.
> so that the large companies have a reason to take on the risk of
> supporting it.
> * Convince one of the largest companies to distribute a royalty-free
> codec, taking on the unknown liability, and make this widely
> known, to
> attract patent trolls.
For Opera doesn't seem large enough that only leaves two commercial
browser (and operating system) vendors. (Yes, I ignore the handheld
market.)
> * Negotiate with the patent holders of a non-royalty-free codec to
> find a
> way that their codec can be used royalty-free.
I actually can imagine this happening, but only for playback.
> * Change the patent system in the various countries that are
> affected by
> the patent trolling issue. (It's not just the US.)
That's the noblest, broadest and hardest approach I guess. Probably
the most expensive, too.
PS: What format for animated truecolor (alpha-channeled) bitmap
images should HTML5 recommend ('should') or require ('must')? ;)
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 20:42:16 UTC