Mailing List Archive

Hay (Husky) wrote:
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
>
> Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the
> HTML5 <video> element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats
> (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not
> specify a default codec for the <video> element.

Technically yes, that's the same state things have been in for a year.

In practice, however... On the desktop browser end, Mozilla, Google, and
Opera are all supporting Ogg Theora & Vorbis. Microsoft doesn't even
support <video>, so only Apple is not supporting Ogg out of the box of
those implementing it so far.

(Desktops are relatively versatile and upgradeable however; mobile
browsers which can't easily be replaced or given codec plugins might be
more interesting territory for a codec battle royale.)

-- brion

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

H264 already plays in, IIRC, 98% of browsers through flash.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Hay (Husky) <huskyr@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
>
> Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the
> HTML5 <video> element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats
> (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not
> specify a default codec for the <video> element.
>
> -- Hay
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/3 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:
> H264 already plays in, IIRC, 98% of browsers through flash.

Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@gmail.com> wrote:
> Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?

In theory, no. In practice, yes. Adobe claims around 99% of all web
users to have Flash installed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_flash#Installed_user_base

-- Hay

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Hay (Husky) <huskyr@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
>
> In theory, no. In practice, yes. Adobe claims around 99% of all web
> users to have Flash installed.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_flash#Installed_user_base
>
> -- Hay
>

I think you have to have Flash 9 to get H264.

It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
h264 codecs.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
> h264 codecs.

No, it's not. H.264 is patented and you need to pay licensing fees to
use it. It's not an open standard and should not be used on the web
if it's at all avoidable. It's possible Mozilla couldn't even legally
ship it, at least if they continue to distribute under the GPL.
(Maybe if they distributed only as LGPL/MPL they could avoid any
issues by making the H.264 part BSD-licensed or something.)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com<Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com>
> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> > It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
> > h264 codecs.
>
> No, it's not. H.264 is patented and you need to pay licensing fees to
> use it. It's not an open standard and should not be used on the web
> if it's at all avoidable. It's possible Mozilla couldn't even legally
> ship it, at least if they continue to distribute under the GPL.
> (Maybe if they distributed only as LGPL/MPL they could avoid any
> issues by making the H.264 part BSD-licensed or something.)
>

A compromise is a win-win. In the absence of a compromise its a lose-lose.
Except that H264 wins since almost all of us already support it.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Brian<Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu> wrote:
> A compromise is a win-win.

Compromising is not a good idea per se. It's only a good idea if it
advances your goals more than refusing to compromises. Some
compromises are bad and should not be accepted. If you put enough
importance on open standards, a fragmented web where authors need to
provide both H.264 and Theora to get optimal functionality is *better*
than one where everyone can just provide H.264 and ignores Theora. In
the first case, Theora will improve and become well-known, and maybe
stand a chance of eventually winning the format war. In the second,
Theora has lost, permanently.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/3 Brian <Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu>:

> A compromise is a win-win. In the absence of a compromise its a lose-lose.
> Except that H264 wins since almost all of us already support it.


Relying on something rendered radioactive by the software patents
attached to it is not a win.

It would be lovely if H.264 wasn't, legally speaking, toxic waste.
However, it is.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not
that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a
format for whatever reason?

Thanks,
-Mike
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

It's not free as it is patent encumbered, see [[H.264#Patent_licensing]].

--Falcorian

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Mike.lifeguard <mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm>wrote:

> Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not
> that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a
> format for whatever reason?
>
> Thanks,
> -Mike
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Silly me, I never thought anyone would even consider having a standard
that wasn't completely open.

-Mike

On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 00:16 -0700, Falcorian wrote:

> It's not free as it is patent encumbered, see [[H.264#Patent_licensing]].
>
> --Falcorian
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Mike.lifeguard <mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm>wrote:
>
> > Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not
> > that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a
> > format for whatever reason?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 14:01, Mike.lifeguard <mikelifeguard@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Silly me, I never thought anyone would even consider having a standard
> that wasn't completely open.

Maybe you are joking and i am missing it, but that is indeed sad -
Nokia, Apple, Microsoft and many other companies really like non-open
standards and dislike open ones. In the particular case of video, they
all probably hate OGG, because it is not DRM-friendly.

But it's even better not to push OGG through a committee, but to make
it the de-facto standard by just using it as much as possible and
recommending Wikipedia readers to install a browser that supports it.
Microsoft made IP their main network protocol after their proprietary
offerings weren't so popular, while ODF's adoption is still weak in
comparison to MS-Office despite apparent support from standards
committees and some local laws.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Amir E. Aharoni<amir.aharoni@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe you are joking and i am missing it, but that is indeed sad -
> Nokia, Apple, Microsoft and many other companies really like non-open
> standards and dislike open ones. In the particular case of video, they
> all probably hate OGG, because it is not DRM-friendly.
It's not a DRM issue afaik. For Apple it's mostly because they have
heavily invested in H264 as their video codec of choice (think
hardware chips in iPods and iPhones) and because of the 'uncertain
patent landscape' surrounding Theora (just restating what Hixie
already said on the WHATWG mailing list).

For Microsoft it's a completely different issue. Their strategy is
frustrating the HTML5 process by ignoring any requests for comments on
HTML5-related issues because they want Silverlight to be the de-facto
language for writing rich internet apps. Also, any embracing of HTML5
on the MS side would mean that they venture onto Google's terrain, who
is almighty when it comes to using the browser for RIA's.

We do have a somewhat important role in this whole debate, because we
are one of the few major websites that have embraced OGG for many
years, and using it as our sole way of displaying video. When, at a
certain point in time, all WP articles have beautiful OGG video's
using the <video> element IE and Safari users might start to complain
about the lack of native support in their browsers, forcing MS and
Apple to support <video> and Theora in their browsers.

But that might be wishful thinking :)

-- Hay

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 13:26, Amir E. Aharoni<amir.aharoni@gmail.com> wrote:

> But it's even better not to push OGG through a committee, but to make
> it the de-facto standard by just using it as much as possible and
> recommending Wikipedia readers to install a browser that supports it.

And like it or not we may happen to be stonger than micro$oft on this
field since we may very possibly have more influence on the webizens
around than them. If we push people to use free codecs (vorbis instead
of mp3, theora or dirac instead of h.264 and mpeg4 and divx) the world
may actually follow suit.

Not a decision which should be taken lightly.

(And naturally I'm for free codecs, let's kill wmv, or vmw or whatever
that pest called.)

My 2 'cents.

grin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Hay (Husky)<huskyr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the
> HTML5 <video> element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats
> (Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not
> specify a default codec for the <video> element.

Theora supporters should be pleased with this. Theora is clearly
better supported in browsers currently implementing the <video>
element, but H.264 is way more common in the broader video
environment, particularly in terms of hardware support and support
outside the browser (in mobile devices, for example). It's much closer
to being the de facto standard of the web than Theora is.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l