- From: Spartanicus <mk98762@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:32:02 +0100
timeless <timeless at gmail.com> wrote: >> Desktop client content support will determine the format most content >> will be published in. > >Interesting claim, however Apple so far has introduced AAC (high >quality drm-less) and MPEG4 for large audiences (OK, YouTube MPEG4 is >merely announced and not technically shipping, but in a week that >changes) both targeted at mobile devices. I fail to see why that relates to what I wrote. >What have you done for the web lately? Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my belief that discussion here is based on strength of argument, not on past credentials. By all means counter argue if you think I'm talking rubbish, but I question the value of saying "What have you done for the web lately?" If you must know, my presence here is as a web author with an interest in making the web a better experience. I developed an early interest in audio and video encoding formats, imo a potentially more important issue than the browser war. The issue of audio and video encoding formats will potentially give a rights holder control over the actual content that we produce and publish. I have advocated the use of open and free to use encoding formats and transport protocols for many years. >(I don't count scaring >companies that are trying to contribute here) I've no idea what you are referring to. I made no negative comments about any company. >What evidence do you have to show that the mobile sector >ever follows suit in reasonable time? I gave my opinion, your's may differ. No-one is able to prove future developments. >> I'm not particularly concerned with Apple's decision not to support an >> open free format. As I said what players with a small market share do is >> IMO irrelevant in relation to what will become the de facto standard of >> publishing audio and video content on the web. > >I'm sorry, I seem to have missed an introduction, which big player are >you See above. >and why is it OK for you to dictate terms to anyone? My prediction is based on how IE has been a major factor with the WhatWG and non IE browser manufacturers accepting that IEs market dominance effectively requires others to adopt IEs markup parsing and strive for good convergence with IE in general. It is my opinion that what will be used on the web is largely a numbers game, market share has the ability to make advocacy reasoning pretty much pointless. No-one other than market leaders have the ability to effectively dictate anything to anyone, and I fail to see how you can read my contribution to the discussion as dictating. My advocacy for open and free to use audio and video formats may well be rendered null and void after the market leaders have made their decision, but until they do I will add my voice to the debate. >Sorry, this was ambiguous, I've chosen to take it to mean that you >agree people shouldn't criticise companies for being concerned with >laws and the risk of lawsuits. I agree. Note that I've not done so, in this or any other thread. >I believe an aim of whatwg is a viable implementable standard that >reflects the realities of the web while encouraging innovation. MPEG4 >is part of the web (a growing part too). I agree with what I perceive to be the WhatWG's modus operandi: aim for the best solutions that can realistically be achieved. Don't engage in ivory tower idealism, accept the boundaries that the real world imposes, including commercial realities. But I don't accept that idealistic advocacy regarding encoding format support for the <video> element is pointless in the situation in which we are today where the market leaders haven't yet decided what they are going to do. -- Spartanicus
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 08:32:02 UTC