On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:50:31 +0200, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
<video> itself supports multiple sources, so there's no need for
JavaScript to do this. But it does mean we end up with exactly the
situation we're in now, with different implementations supporting
different codecs and the spec not having any power over this.
Not really. Having the <video> element, even without a baseline codec,
we're better off than today where a horrible mix of JavaScript, <object>,
<embed>, and/or conditional comments is the only way to get a
cross-browser video solution working.
That is, of course, if Microsoft decides to implement <video>. If they
don't, I assume <object> wrapped in <video> works just as well as nested
<video> elements.
The next-best option is Ogg, that favors small independent content
producers.
That seems to be what Opera, Mozilla, and Chrome are implementing.
Then, isn't it better to have 3 out of 5 browsers adhering to the standard
(requiring Ogg Theora support) than to have no requirement to adhere to at
all? To have the standard as a backing when pushing Microsoft and Apple to
come to their senses, does give more leverage than to have nothing at all.
While neither Microsoft nor Apple will launch browsers that immediately
support Ogg Theora after HTML5 reaches TR status, they might after a while
of good old fashioned bitching and nagging.
Seeing how just about all states on the planet is moving towards open
standard support and implementation into national government law, I
actually think HTML5 requiring Ogg Theora support will make a difference
some years from now. If HTML5 requires support for Ogg Theora and
Microsoft and Apple don't support it, it's likely that great forces like
the EU Commission will react and force them into submission. If HTML5
doesn't require support of any codec, there's not much the EU Commission
or any other government can do.
As a little PS to all of this: On January 1st 2009 the Norwegian
government made it mandatory that all video published on the web, by
government-funded projects and agencies in Norway, to be in the Ogg Theora
format. You're allowed to publish other formats as well, but Ogg Theora is
the common baseline format everyone must publish.
For audio, the required format is Ogg Vorbis, and for text it's HTML, ODT
or PDF depending on the type of document and interaction requirements.
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.
Why is this the case for video but not images? We don't require a
particular image format for <img> either, but people know you can just
PNG and JPEG.
It is indeed the case for images as well, but the situation is, and was,
different. None of the browser vendors had or have invested any
considerable amount of time or money on any image format. That's not the
case with video, where both Microsoft and Apple have invested a great deal.
MPEG-1 is nowhere near good enough at this point to be a serious
contender. There have been suggestions that even Theora isn't good enough
yet (for example, YouTube won't use Theora with the current state of
encoders), an it _far_ outperforms MPEG-1.
Indeed.
--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbj...@ulsberg.no
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
