[whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the <video> element

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

>> 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

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.


Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2007 08:32:02 UTC