W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007
Re: [whatwg] Video proposals
From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:04:11 +0900
Message-ID: <45FED09B.90805@students.cs.uu.nl>
To: Robert Brodrecht <w3c@robertdot.org>
CC: public-html@w3.org, whatwg@whatwg.org
Robert Brodrecht schreef:
>> I  don't see how you're going to avoid that with
>> <video> unless you intend  to make it a non-pluggable system, which does
>> not seem like a good idea.
> I think that was the idea.  I don't need plugins for certain media files,
> e.g., GIF, JPEG, and PNG (and maybe WAV, MP3, and MIDI using bgsound in IE
> if that is still around).  If a certain set of cross-platform video codecs
> could be supported, there would be no need for a plugin.  The OS / browser
> would be built to understand those codecs, and a hefty set of plugin
> controls wouldn't need to be exposed to the author.
You do need a plugin for SVG. So you're saying that whether or not a
file qualifies for <img> or <video> does not depend on the file type but
on whether it is supported natively by the browser? That is some strange
semantics. Maybe you should rename it to
<video-that-we-natively-support>, would be more accurate.
Anyway, I find it doubtful that you can get browsers to agree.
Especially since two of them have say, a special interest in certain
non-open formats. In addition to that, I think it's important to not
make innovating people or companies second-class citizens by not
allowing them to plug into the browser here. That's a step backwards,
not forwards. Also, a plugin system would allow adoption of a new video
format (take SVG and the IE SVG plugin for example) in one browser
without having to depend on the other's willingness to do so as well.
> What WHATWG has been shooting for, is one common codec.  At this point,
> WHATWG folks want Theora.  Apparently, that may still have some licensing
> issues.  However, if the browser vendors would come together and figure
> out a set of codecs to support - or just ONE modern, shared codec - it
> could be a de facto standard and wouldn't have to be put in HTML 5.
If it's supposed to be de facto I definitely don't see the browsers
having a common subset of supported video formats.
I can see the browser support list already:
Apple - Quicktime
IE - Windows Media
Mozilla - Theora and MPEG4
Opera - Theora
Playstation browser - MPEG4
Btw, Theora is nice an all, but… for music MP3 is the de facto standard,
so playing MP3 makes the most sense for audio. Why, then, take Theora
and not MPEG4, which is the de facto standard in video (at least outside
the web)? I know you guys like openness, but I'm sure all hell would
break loose if the browser wouldn't support MP3 but Ogg Vorbis instead.
MPEG4 is a codec that's superior to Theora, and as far as I know MPEG4
can—just like MP3—be implemented on a royalty-free basis; the patent
holder only charges for encoding? Maybe I'm wrong on that last point,
but anyway.
~Grauw
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
application/x-pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 19 March 2007 18:05:15 GMT
Next message: Robert Brodrecht: "Re: [whatwg] Video proposals"
Previous message: Eric Bednarz: "IMG WIDTH/HEIGHT attributes (was: [whatwg] Video proposals)"
In reply to: Robert Brodrecht: "Re: [whatwg] Video proposals"
Next in thread: Robert Brodrecht: "Re: [whatwg] Video proposals"
Reply: Robert Brodrecht: "Re: [whatwg] Video proposals"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 19 March 2007 18:05:17 GMT