[whatwg] M
Sent from my iPhone
Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 49, Issue 5
On Apr 3, 2008, at 9:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Message: 2 Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:21:42 -0700 From: Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [whatwg] Video To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 With all due respect: the mission of the WWW Corporation is to create standards, not to create situations. Not to speak for Robert, but I'm guessing that his point is that the W3C isn't creating a standard here. My understanding is that the goal is to bless some combination of existing video, audio and container format standards. -- Charles Thank you, Charles. Yes. The W3C, by offering no actionable advice on standards support in this area, is implying by omission that any of the existing formats is just as good for interoperability as any other. I think in general principle that it would be better to bless (great word, and that's just it) MPEG-4 AVC for the present, despite its legal encumbrances, and to continue to press for a technically-excellent format that does not have those encumbrances. The W3C is not only about web standards. It's also the road map. Right now, that road map, where video is concerned, says the following: User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container formats. It might as well say Here be dragons. I think it's time, at the very least, to say goodbye to single-company proprietary dreck. To say both that existing international standards are OK for now, but the ideal as currently expressed in the boxed copy under 3.12.7.1 is still not met. A suggestion, with humility, as I have no standing here ... 3.12.7.1. Video and audio codecs for video elements User agents must support either one or more free, open source codecs for video and audio content, or one or more ISO/IEC-standard codecs for video and audio content. (User agents may also support free, open- source codecs AND ISO/IEC-standard codecs.) -- Robert, a/k/a Bob
[whatwg] Video
I wrote: From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that the ideals of the W3C as expressed in 3.12.7.1 http://3.12.7.1 would result in a situation that would be superior to simply letting the international standards body for audio and video codecs deal with these technological areas. Gervase Markham wrote: Your plan would, at least, prevent the standard codec being supported on Free operating systems. Meeting 3.12.7.1 as it stands would not prevent this. Therefore, it would be a superior situation. David Gerard wrote: The actual solution is a large amount of compelling content in Theora or similar. Wikimedia is working on this, though we're presently hampered by a severe lack of money for infrastructure and are unlikely to have enough in time for FF3/Webkit/HTML5. - d. It will be very, very difficult to develop critical mass for content encoded in Theora (or Dirac), much less ubiquity. I'm not saying there's no point in trying. I applaud the effort, though I have misgivings about the W3C setting itself up as a video/audio standards organization when we already have the Motion Picture Experts Group. But ... why not recommend that web developers encode in MPEG-4 AVC or Theora? At least that would give some direction out of the current morass. ISO/IEC standards, like AVC/h.264, are vastly preferable to single-vendor (non)standards from Adobe, MS and Real. Why should the W3C choose not create a better situation than the current one (which is a mess for developers and a mess for users), while continuing to work on the ideal? Robert J Crisler
[whatwg] Video
I notice that HTML5's video section is incomplete and lacking. The text under 3.12.7.1 could have been written ten years ago: It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more information is available. The time has come for the W3C to swallow a bit of pride and cede this control, this area, to the Motion Picture Experts Group. While MPEG does not produce a codec that is free of any licensing constraints, the organization has produced a codec, actually several, that are world standards. You may have a digital cable or satellite service (that's MPEG-2 or MPEG-4). You may have a DVD player (MPEG-2), or a Blu-Ray player (MPEG-4). You may have an iPod (MPEG-4). And you may have heard of MP3. The time has come for the W3C, despite misgivings, to support an ISO/ IEC organization that is charged with the development of video and audio encoding standards. We can't have a separate set of standards for web distribution. It simply complicates workflows and stunts any potential transition to the web as the dominant distribution mechanism for such media. Whatever the misgivings, it's time to say that the ISO/IEC standards are preferable to proprietary codecs (Windows Media, Flash), and that MPEG-4 AVC is recommended over other codecs for video. It would be really great if an intrepid group of smart people were to come up with something technically superior to MPEG-4, make it a world standard for encoding audio and video, and make it available without any patent or royalty constraints. That has not happened, despite some strong efforts particularly from the OGG people, and it's time to acknowledge that fact and stop holding out. Again, the W3C should cede these issues to the ISO/IEC standards organization set up for the purpose of defining world standards in video and audio compression and decompression. Robert J Crisler Manager, Internet and Interactive Media UNL | University Communications 321 Canfield Administration Building Lincoln, NE 68588-0424 402-472-9878 For information on web development at UNL, please see the UNL Web Developer Network website at http://www.unl.edu/webdevnet/. University Communications Internet and Interactive Media can help you build an engaging online presence from site development to web applications development using open standards and open source.
Re: [whatwg] Video
I'm not saying that the MPEG codecs meet the 3.12.7.1 requirements. I'm saying that ISO/IEC MPEG standards are vastly preferable to the nonstandard, single-company junk that web developers are saddled with now. The W3C need not abandon its ideals to declare that MPEG standards are better than the status quo of MS, Adobe and Real standards. From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that the ideals of the W3C as expressed in 3.12.7.1would result in a situation that would be superior to simply letting the international standards body for audio and video codecs deal with these technological areas. IF 3.12.7.1 were satisfied by Ogg or some other effort, we would still at best end up with a bifurcated digital world, where the web went with the free/open standard, while every other digital representation of video and audio was encoded in the MPEG set of standards. I just think idealism shouldn't have to trump pragmatism in this instance. Who wins and who loses? Web and new media developers win by having a streamlined workflow and one expectation for video and audio standards support in browsers. Users win by not having to worry about whether or not they have the right plug-in for Site A or Site B. The W3C wins by having a video tag that's reliable and complete, and not just a sort-of-better EMBED. The issue of a small licensing fee didn't stop MPEG 1 Part 3 from becoming the ubiquitous world standard for audio. It isn't going to stop MPEG-4 AAC from supplanting it, and it hasn't stopped MPEG-2 and AVC from being the standard for HD codecs. Insisting on purity in these matters while the world moves on strikes me as just a bit quixotic. On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert J Crisler wrote: The text under 3.12.7.1 could have been written ten years ago: It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more information is available. ... You may have a digital cable or satellite service (that's MPEG-2 or MPEG-4). You may have a DVD player (MPEG-2), or a Blu-Ray player (MPEG-4). You may have an iPod (MPEG-4). And you may have heard of MP3. So you believe that these codecs meet the requirements in 3.12.7.1? Or are you saying that the requirements need to change? If you are saying they need to change, who wins and who loses from the change? And how do you justify that? Gerv
