[GHFigs]

Their actions come from their values

Newsflash: everybody's do. That doesn't automatically excuse them from doing stupid things in the name of those values. This is why again and again I keep pointing to the fact that I am criticizing their actions and not their values. You keep assuming that the values that Mozilla espouses can lead to one and only one possible course of action and that that is automatically the right one. I am saying that this is not so, and I'm pointing to the fact that users are being harmed and no good is coming of it as a sign that it wasn't the right choice.

how would you qualify apple by not supporting theora in safari?

The difference is that with Safari you can install Theora on your system (http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/) and it works just fine in <video> and everywhere else (and yes, it works on Wikipedia.) Apple simply doesn't ship Theora which is a much more benign way of "not supporting" something than disabling it altogether. Mozilla, on the other hand, has specifically chosen to prevent users from using anything other than Theora in conjunction with <video>, and not because it's not possible to do it any other way.

[Sanguinez]

Then users shouldn't use patent encumbered formats. Simple as that. There already been enough mess by formats supported by browser X but not Y.

[GHFigs]

Then users shouldn't use patent encumbered formats.

Blaming the user is not a strategy the results in good software. I contend that it does much to hurt the cause it it supposed to promote. You're also blaming the user for something they can't control: the format of the content they're trying to view.

Moreover, it isn't simply a patent-encumbrance issue, as Mozilla's choice has been to equally block other patent-free formats. It's Theora or nothing. Read that again and then tell me it's all about freedom.

Simple as that.

It isn't, in fact. Most of the video content on the web today is in patent-encumbered formats, specifically h.264. You're saying that users should not want to continue to be able to view the content is already out there.

It is not the place of a web browser vendor to punish users for wanting to use the web normally. In fact, quite the opposite.

There already been enough mess by formats supported by browser X but not Y.

...and Mozilla is demonstrably perpetuating that mess by only supporting a format that nobody uses and nobody wants to use. Meanwhile all major operating systems currently support h.264 natively, all major video sites use h.264, and all other <video>-supporting browsers support h.264. If Mozilla wants to help clear the mess, they're doing exactly the wrong thing.

[Sanguinez]

This is still about an open web. Using gstreamer would just be passing the burden onto others without solving much. Users would be able to watch h264 videos, but they wouldn't be aware of patent issues and wouldn't care since it works for them.

I agree that ironically they could still use flash to access youtube (even though they eem to take all the votes for theora in consideration), but there are also big websites using theora such as dailymotion or wikipedia. But there is a huge differene between a html tag and a plug-in.

[GHFigs]

...be passing the burden onto others without solving much.

The burden of what? Deciding what video content is acceptable? Like I said before, that should not be Mozilla's role, but it's the one they've taken on.

they wouldn't be aware of patent issues and wouldn't care

Restricting them to Theora doesn't change this, as sites will continue to deliver h.264 through Flash to user agents that don't support it natively. I contend that Mozilla's approach to "educating" users about these issues is a bad one that fails to educate.

there are also big websites using theora such as dailymotion or wikipedia

DailyMotion also uses h.264 for every other platform. Wikipedia's reasons for using Ogg are very specific to Wikipedia's aims. Neither of these constitute a good reason to artificially restrict users to only Theora.

But there is a huge differene between a html tag and a plug-in.

Yes...and? What's your point?

[Sanguinez]

"The burden of what? Deciding what video content is acceptable? Like I said before, that should not be Mozilla's role, but it's the one they've taken on."

The burden of dealing with patent encumbered formats. Someone would have to pay or it would remain illegal. As Firefox developers develop Firefox, they have their say in what do or don't do Firefox. And even if they pay it wouldn't be free since there would be strings attached.

"Yes...and? What's your point?"

My point is simple and has remained the same from the very beginning: h.264 is not compatible with an open and free (as in freedom) internet. Therefore implementing h.264 is either not compatible with free software, not an issue in countries where software patents don't exists, or done in an illegal manner. So here we go again: How much would someone value his freedom?

This guy explains it in much better terms than I could: http://shaver.off.net/diary/2010/01/23/html5-video-and-codec...

[GHFigs]

The burden of dealing with patent encumbered formats.

They already do this by letting users install Flash -- in fact, they make it particularly easy to do so, patent-encumbered though it is. And as I've pointed out before, they use Flash to play h.264 video anyway. The difference with <video> is that Mozilla is actively forbidding users from passing that supposed burden onto the operating system vendor, who in the case of Windows and Mac OS X, have already licensed h.264. In the case of free software operating systems, users can choose whether they want to have support for h.264 or not, just as they have for years with any number of other patent-encumbered formats.

And once again, we're not merely talking about patent-encumbered formats, as Mozilla prevents users from using non-Ogg patent-free formats like Dirac and Flac.

My point is simple...

You didn't actually answer my question. You keep mentioning things and then forgetting them entirely. Please just make a coherent argument or stop replying. If you're not going to talk sense, you're wasting time for both of us.

Therefore implementing h.264...

It has been made abundantly clear that they don't have to in order to allow users to use it of their own free will. Just as Apple did not have to implement Theora in order to allow users to view Theora content in <video> if they choose to do so.

This guy explains it in much better terms...

He didn't, actually. He made a lot of emotional appeals that fly in the face of reality and then breezily dismissed every other argument in a single concluding paragraph. I know this because I already read it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1073718