|
|
|
|
|
|
by nextparadigms
5431 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, he is totally fine with the idea of using HTML5 vs Flash, because "Flash is proprietary and bad", even though Flash was and still is the standard for online video! But then he turns around and says "why bother with the open WebM when you can use this "standardized" codec that is h.264", even though it's proprietary and patent-encumbered. Completely opposite positions and double standard on his part. The only common ground between them is that the one's he's supporting are the ones Apple is supporting. |
|
|
Let me be clear, though: there is nothing wrong with playing a video in Flash. I mean that seriously, no sarcasm. What there’s something wrong with is requiring Flash Player to play video. That’s the whole point of the HTML5 <video> element: to enable web video without requiring the use of proprietary plugins.
And:
I have nothing against WebM. In fact, prior to this week’s announcement, I thought Chrome had the best HTML5 video policy of any browser: they supported all the relevant codecs. Supporting WebM and H.264 is better than supporting only one or the other, in my book. But if you’re only going to support one, I say support the one that is in wide use, with extensive wide-ranging support from camera makers, mobile playback devices, and online video services.
-- http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/practical_vs_idealistic
This aren't "completely opposite positions". This is consistent pragmatism. I believe you frame it as a contradiction because you see the issue primarily as an ideological one of open vs. closed, with the "open" nature of WebM trumping any utility of h.264. Not everybody sees it that way.