[macrael]

This is complete nonsense.

Read this instead: http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-Jun...

Straight from the horses mouth, that is the state of HTML5 video and why we got there. The posted article is built on the idea that HTML5 requires H.264 when that is not the case at all. The spec does not specify a codec for use on the video tag, just as it doesn't for the img tag.

More importantly, the authors claim "we can cut to the chase and try to get the HTML5 spec fixed--in which case the commercial vendors would have to fix their implementations in order to be considered compliant." is bogus as well. The spec is a delicate balance. If something is spec'd out, but major vendors are not going to implement it, then you have accomplished nothing by putting it in the spec, and in fact, the spec actually harmful at that point because people will believe it is implemented correctly. The spec is only useful insofar as it is a set of things that all the players can agree to implement.

I do recommend reading through the email I linked to, in it Ian Hixie, by responding to emails he received, lays out a lot of the thinking that guided the making of the spec.

[ZeroGravitas]

The link is good, but you repeat the highly misleading claim that video shouldn't specify a codec because img tag doesn't specify an image format.

If that's the case then why did Hixie spec an interoperable codec in the first place? I think the answer is obvious when you count the number and quality of competing, royalty-free image formats that uphold the basic principles of the web versus the number and quality of competing, royalty-free video codecs.

Claiming that not specifying a codec will lead to anything other than a de-facto standard of the non-royalty free H.264 is ridiculously, shockingly disingenuous. It's just shady lawyering to claim that pushing for a codec, that by its very nature can't be in the spec, and having its rivals removed from the spec, is anything other than the equivalent of having it in the spec.

[macrael]

I never said that the spec should not specify a video codec, I was just trying to set the record straight. In fact, I didn't claim anything about the spec at all, I just summarized some of Hixie's points. If you aren't satisfied with what I wrote, I recommend reading Hixie's words. Please let me know if I misrepresented him. And, I disagree that not having it in the spec is the equivalent of having it in the spec. The problem is that the spec is useless when, as Hixie puts it, it becomes fiction. Mandating either Theora or H.264 in the spec would have been useless because either Firefox/Opera would be violating the spec or Safari/IE would be. So the only option left to them was to leave it out of the spec, something that Hixie was not happy about but seems like the right thing to do. If a codec comes along that all the vendors can agree to implement, then it is likely that will go into the spec, but until then it will remain blank.

[ZeroGravitas]

I agree with Hixie that putting it in the spec is pointless if Apple and Microsoft are going to go against the spec.

I disagree that just by forcing the spec to be changed from requiring Theora that Apple and Microsoft now get off the hook for their actions.

You said, repeating an often made claim, The spec does not specify a codec for use on the video tag, just as it doesn't for the img tag. Which is factually correct now, after Apple refused to implement the spec as it was and Hixie edited the spec to reflect reality. Hixie claims he will add a codec back, once one is found suitable, which means both royalty-free and implemented by the big players.

You appear to have done it by accident, but you'll find comments elsewhere in the thread that make the argument that he has no right to specify any codec in HTML5, whether Theora or a future royalty-free codec, and make the parallel to the img tag not specifying an image format. This is clearly not Hixie's position, and I don't think it generally holds any water.

[pbhjpbhj]

>I agree with Hixie that putting it in the spec is pointless if Apple and Microsoft are going to go against the spec.

I disagree.

The spec should enable the web to be used unencumbered by patented software/codecs.

Ogg Theora or any other free+open container and codec (VP8?) would enable people to use FOSS software to create video and put that video on the web without being beholden to the H264 patent holders group ("MPEG LA").

Microsoft or Apple Computers or whoever would then be required to implement a viewer in their browser in order to comply with the spec. If they don't then they don't get to label themselves "standards compliant" without committing fraud and can't badge themselves with W3C compliance without trademark/copyright infringements.

If Opera, Firefox, Konqueror, etc., implement the full spec this applies pressure to obstinate commercial megoliths to also move to implement it.

What we have here is akin to knowing that the GIF patent situation (Unisys trying to get money from nearly everyone on the internet) is around the corner, already having PNG but not requiring that browsers implement PNG.

I think the situation is far worse than the GIF situation though, eg http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Vid... . Now http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/04/know-your-rights-h-264-pa... Engadget did a review of the situation in which the MPEG-LA say that they're not really going to hold their license terms (which mean that you can't shoot film on _any_ camera and use it commercially without purchasing a license) against people and basically they're really nice and we shouldn't be afraid of them. Which I agree, we have nothing to fear until the spec is widely implemented and the open license on H264 gets pulled out from under everyone in 2015 and MPEG-LA attempt to pull a Unisys.

[vvatsa]

Very informative, Thanks.