W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2009

[whatwg] H.264-in-<video> vs plugin APIs

From: Chris DiBona <cdibona@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:08:26 -0400
Message-ID: <7d9492d90906130708g60efdb1br846660ec7e98d067@mail.gmail.com>
> We certainly believe so, but I'm certainly not qualified to evaluate
> the different techniques.
>
> Would Theora inherently be any less able to than any other codec
> system, though? ?I hope you're not saying that it has to be H.264
> forever, given the spectre of the streaming license changes at the end
> of 2010.

No, but it is what I worry about. How agressive will mpeg.la be in
their interpretation of the direction that theora is going? I don't
think that is a reason to stop the current development direction (or
the funding of it) but I thought that Dirac, with the BBC connection,
might make a better opponent politically than Theora.

> If Youtube is held back by client compatibility, they should be glad
> that we're working hard to move ~25% of the web to having Theora
> support in the near future! ?Google could help that cause a lot by
> putting (well-encoded, ahem) Theora up there, even if it's just in the
> experimental /html5 area. ?It wouldn't hurt to use the reference
> libraries rather than ffmpeg for the client either, since we've found
> significant differences in quality of experience there.

It is client compatibility first, and global/edge bandwidth restricted
as well. I'd prefer to ship with the reference libraries and have told
the team as much.

> Mike
>



-- 
Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc.
Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com
Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com
Received on Saturday, 13 June 2009 07:08:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:13 UTC