Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On 31 March 2010 02:07, Richard Watts r...@kynesim.co.uk wrote: Given what I've seen of the utter incomprehension the computing strategy people in general have of video, I suspect the actual reason for resistance is some form of pure political idiocy centering on the mobile companies lobbying to restrict video to things they already (think they have) silicon to accelerate. Nokia neglected to mention, at the time of their strident objection to Theora, that they get money from the H.264 patent pool. - d.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
My statement was completely wrong. Nokia isn't in the H.264 pool. Here's the full list (PDF linked from this page): http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx My sincere apologies to Nokia for this claim. - d. On 31 March 2010 08:48, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote: David, Could you provide some links to substantiate that comment? I'd love to read about it. Nokia neglected to mention, at the time of their strident objection to Theora, that they get money from the H.264 patent pool.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On 29 March 2010 00:03, Silvia Pfeiffer silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: The catch with Vorbis is that if you support it, whoever owns the MP3 patents charges you a lot more. (That's why I have an MP3 player that does Ogg Vorbis but does not mention the fact in the packaging, documentation or advertising in any manner whatsoever.) That would be crazy, cause no MP3 patents apply to Vorbis. You are able to use Vorbis without an MP3 license and the MPEG-LA should not be able to charge you more just because your want to support both codecs in your product. I believe that would not be legal. Do you have a concrete example, like a quote or something, that confirms this? It's from speaking to people at companies who've been bitten by this. (It works something like you will be ineligible for this substantial discount if you implement Vorbis.) No quotable citation, sorry. - d.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
Forgive my ignorance, I Am Not A Lawyer, but what are the consequences of a submarine patent on Theora and/or Vorbis? If a browser supports it in good faith, and subsequently a troll successfully introduces a patent challenge, would the consequence not be that the codec would simply be dropped with the next maintenance release of the browser? In fact a court would surely allow a reasonable time for transition. OK, annoying that content providers need to re-encoded in a legal codec, but that is at least a work-flow susceptible to automation. I can't see a court giving financial damages for infringement of a patent which hasn't surfaced since video was proposed at the end of 2006. On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 March 2010 09:41, Kit Grose k...@iqmultimedia.com.au wrote: Apple is at heart a hardware company. My understanding of their objections to OGG have been also largely due to a lack of hardware decoder support in their iPods/iPhones. No, they claimed submarine patents as their actual objection to Theora. (I'm not aware of them making an express claim of this sort regarding Vorbis.) - d. -- Eoin Kilfeather Digital Media Centre Dublin Institute of Technology Aungier Street Dublin 2 m. +353 87 2235928 skype:ekilfeather
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
Eoin Kilfeather wrote: Forgive my ignorance, I Am Not A Lawyer, Neither am I.. In fact a court would surely allow a reasonable time for transition. If it's got as far as a court then it probably already cost you a significant chunk of money. Rob
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Eoin Kilfeather ekilfeat...@dmc.dit.ie wrote: Forgive my ignorance, I Am Not A Lawyer, but what are the consequences of a submarine patent on Theora and/or Vorbis? If a browser supports it in good faith, and subsequently a troll successfully introduces a patent challenge, would the consequence not be that the codec would simply be dropped with the next maintenance release of the browser? In fact a court would surely allow a reasonable time for transition. OK, annoying that content providers need to re-encoded in a legal codec, but that is at least a work-flow susceptible to automation. I can't see a court giving financial damages for infringement of a patent which hasn't surfaced since video was proposed at the end of 2006. Never doubt the stupidity and banality of patent judges in America. ~TJ
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
Isn't the concept of a submarine patent also possible against a patented algorithm? Perry
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On 3/30/10 9:58 AM, Eoin Kilfeather wrote: If a browser supports it in good faith, and subsequently a troll successfully introduces a patent challenge, would the consequence not be that the codec would simply be dropped with the next maintenance release of the browser? IANAL, but as I understand the answer is it depends. In fact a court would surely allow a reasonable time for transition. Depends on how one defines reasonable. Also depends on whether a preliminary injunction is issued; if one is the chances of reasonable time seem slimmer to me. but that is at least a work-flow susceptible to automation. Sort of. Transcoding of a large corpus of video can well take more than a reasonable time. I can't see a court giving financial damages for infringement of a patent which hasn't surfaced sincevideo was proposed at the end of 2006. Why not? It's a patent and it's being infringed. Why wouldn't there be financial damages? I think you're being too optimistic about the way patents work nowadays... :( -Boris
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On 3/30/10 11:43 AM, Perry Smith wrote: Isn't the concept of a submarine patent also possible against a patented algorithm? Yes, but since Apple already ships other H.264 decoders it already has exposure to whatever patents could come up against it. So from their point of view, the marginal patent exposure of shipping H.264 in video is 0. Similar for Microsoft. I can't speak to the situation Google is in. -Boris
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
Boris Zbarsky wrote: On 3/30/10 11:43 AM, Perry Smith wrote: Isn't the concept of a submarine patent also possible against a patented algorithm? Yes, but since Apple already ships other H.264 decoders it already has exposure to whatever patents could come up against it. So from their point of view, the marginal patent exposure of shipping H.264 in video is 0. Similar for Microsoft. I can't speak to the situation Google is in. For my money (and this is worth what you paid for it :-)) the whole submarine patents thing is a non-issue in the context of HTML5. The same argument could be made about any feature of HTML5 - and I'm sure there are 'submarine' (in the sense of not-widely-known-about) patents on many other HTML5 features that all of the big browser companies are happily implementing. Unless they know something I don't, the risk is certainly not much less - at least the Theora guys have taken care to avoid all the patents they knew about: more than can be said for most standards bodies (and I don't know how vigorous the whatwg have been in sanitising HTML5, but you can bet that someone somewhere involved in the implementation of your browser hasn't). So: I think the submarine patents argument is a red herring. Given what I've seen of the utter incomprehension the computing strategy people in general have of video, I suspect the actual reason for resistance is some form of pure political idiocy centering on the mobile companies lobbying to restrict video to things they already (think they have) silicon to accelerate. One might expect resistance from Apple, at least - they have a lot of iPods and iPhones out there (and now iPads) which as far as I know simply won't play anything but H.264 without a major upgrade - or that's what they could be expected to think, anyway. It will be interesting to see what the attitude is to the H.265 propsals the MPEG-LA are now discussing when they finally become public (of course, in a sane world, VP8 would become H.265 and everyone would be happy) R
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On 29/03/2010, at 7:11 AM, Kelly Clowers wrote: On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote: I was under the impression that Apple were one of the main opposers to using free codecs in-place of their proprietary QuickTime. For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec (especially since Vorbis has a lot of high profile use that should have drawn out any patent trolls) , and that is what Apple supposedly is worried about. Apple is at heart a hardware company. My understanding of their objections to OGG have been also largely due to a lack of hardware decoder support in their iPods/iPhones. Also, when was the last time you ever knew Microsoft to go with standarised formats when they can just as easily push one of their own? shug MS isn't quite who they used to be. They open-source things, and put things under the open specification promise, and they seem to be very serious about CSS3 and (X)HTML5 standards now. I think there is at least a chance of them supporting Vorbis. IE 9 (though not the platform preview) will support H.264 video in the video element: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/03/16/html5-hardware-accelerated-first-ie9-platform-preview-available-for-developers.aspx I would be inclined to suggest that MS will implement video playback via DirectShow (theoretically enabling any codec the user has installed), but that's pure speculation on my part. —Kit Grose
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On 29 March 2010 09:41, Kit Grose k...@iqmultimedia.com.au wrote: Apple is at heart a hardware company. My understanding of their objections to OGG have been also largely due to a lack of hardware decoder support in their iPods/iPhones. No, they claimed submarine patents as their actual objection to Theora. (I'm not aware of them making an express claim of this sort regarding Vorbis.) - d.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote: I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the specification, but the fact that such licensing is being considered for what is supposed to be open free is counter productive to the advancement of web technologies. I feel we cannot allow companies like Microsoft and Apple to take advantage of such patents. Allowing the H.264 to be a part of the spec without it being royalty free only gives those corporations more control [snip] Ah! Now I understand. H.264 is not under consideration as part of spec, and I don't believe that anyone has ever even tendered a serious proposal that it be considered as part of the specification for exactly the reasons that you've enumerated. It wasn't clear to me that you were unaware of this, I thought you were attempting to propose a way— though, sadly, an unworkable one— in which it could be considered. Cheers! That's certainly news to me. I see a lot of people talking up having H.264 as the standard for HTML 5 video. The codec problem is a serious one though. There needs to be a good solution to this... other than NOT specifying a codec (which I think is a bad idea, anyway). The problem with not specifying a codec is that it is already sort of a codec hell dealing with downloadable videos, with WMV, Dirac, Theora, XviD, DivX, H.264, 3GPP, etc. When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The GIF format made things hairy later, but with JPEG and PNG, the issues eventually resolved themselves. But the img tag was made at a time when there was no format soup for images... Or at least, not one nearly as serious a problem as the video tag. Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and Vorbis at least. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless somebody else has any other decent reasonably available open source, royalty-free codec that can be used for the video and audio tags?
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com: Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and Vorbis at least. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless somebody else has any other decent reasonably available open source, royalty-free codec that can be used for the video and audio tags? This is what I don't understand either. It's not like H.264 won't be successful if another baseline format is specified in the recommendation. So, all this PR about submarine patents to scare people away from unencumbered formats is not necessary. Recommending an unencumbered format like MPEG 1 or H.263 or Dirac or Theora (the last one having the best quality of the bunch) will help tremendously with the standardization of the Internet, and if Apple wants to use a different format for their higher-quality videos, that's fine too. -- Remco
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
2010/3/28 Remco remc...@gmail.com: This is what I don't understand either. It's not like H.264 won't be successful if another baseline format is specified in the recommendation. So, all this PR about submarine patents to scare people away from unencumbered formats is not necessary. Recommending an unencumbered format like MPEG 1 or H.263 or Dirac or Theora (the last one having the best quality of the bunch) will help tremendously with the standardization of the Internet, and if Apple wants to use a different format for their higher-quality videos, that's fine too. One editor works for Apple, the other works for Google. - d.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
This is what I don't understand either. It's not like H.264 won't be successful if another baseline format is specified in the It will offer a workable possibility for smaller video producers to NOT licence H.264, and use Theora instead. This would be very counterproductive for those with licensing revenue from H.264. The absence of Theora (or Dirac) as baseline codec means that a good portion of user agents will likely omit Theora support, de facto removing the ability to not use H.264, unless you want to cut yourself from part of your potential customers, and start handicapped from the start.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com: When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The GIF format made things hairy later, but with JPEG and PNG, the issues eventually resolved themselves. But the img tag was made at a time when there was no format soup for images... Or at least, not one nearly as serious a problem as the video tag. Also, image formats are less complicated to implement than video, both in the codec itself and the fact that images don't have to worry about subtitles, containers, seeking, sound, etc. Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and Vorbis at least. That was the recommendation before all codec references where removed. Currently among HTML5 browsers, I believe only Safari does not support Vorbis (they all support pcm wav). Safari uses QuickTime, so if Apple would bundle XiphQT, Safari would be set. Who knows what MS is planning for IE9, but I don't think they would object too much to having Vorbis as an option, especially if they are using DirectShow. A great many high-profile games have used Vorbis, including MS-published Halo and Fable. Really, the audio situation seems fairly manageable. Vorbis even has an advantage in size/quality over most other codecs, especially the so-common MP3. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless somebody else has any other decent reasonably available open source, royalty-free codec that can be used for the video and audio tags? Well, if Google frees VP8... Cheers, Kelly Clowers
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote: 2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com: When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The GIF format made things hairy later, but with JPEG and PNG, the issues eventually resolved themselves. But the img tag was made at a time when there was no format soup for images... Or at least, not one nearly as serious a problem as the video tag. Also, image formats are less complicated to implement than video, both in the codec itself and the fact that images don't have to worry about subtitles, containers, seeking, sound, etc. Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and Vorbis at least. That was the recommendation before all codec references where removed. Currently among HTML5 browsers, I believe only Safari does not support Vorbis (they all support pcm wav). Safari uses QuickTime, so if Apple would bundle XiphQT, Safari would be set. Who knows what MS is planning for IE9, but I don't think they would object too much to having Vorbis as an option, especially if they are using DirectShow. A great many high-profile games have used Vorbis, including MS-published Halo and Fable. Really, the audio situation seems fairly manageable. Vorbis even has an advantage in size/quality over most other codecs, especially the so-common MP3. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless somebody else has any other decent reasonably available open source, royalty-free codec that can be used for the video and audio tags? Well, if Google frees VP8... Cheers, Kelly Clowers I was under the impression that Apple were one of the main opposers to using free codecs in-place of their proprietary QuickTime. Also, when was the last time you ever knew Microsoft to go with standarised formats when they can just as easily push one of their own? Even the image formats in the early days were an area of debate. Does anyone remember the time when there was still the threat of the licensing issue surrounding the Gif format? It was this very issue that cause the PNG format to be created. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.ukwrote: On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote: 2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com: When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The GIF format made things hairy later, but with JPEG and PNG, the issues eventually resolved themselves. But the img tag was made at a time when there was no format soup for images... Or at least, not one nearly as serious a problem as the video tag. Also, image formats are less complicated to implement than video, both in the codec itself and the fact that images don't have to worry about subtitles, containers, seeking, sound, etc. Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and Vorbis at least. That was the recommendation before all codec references where removed. Currently among HTML5 browsers, I believe only Safari does not support Vorbis (they all support pcm wav). Safari uses QuickTime, so if Apple would bundle XiphQT, Safari would be set. Who knows what MS is planning for IE9, but I don't think they would object too much to having Vorbis as an option, especially if they are using DirectShow. A great many high-profile games have used Vorbis, including MS-published Halo and Fable. Really, the audio situation seems fairly manageable. Vorbis even has an advantage in size/quality over most other codecs, especially the so-common MP3. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless somebody else has any other decent reasonably available open source, royalty-free codec that can be used for the video and audio tags? Well, if Google frees VP8... Cheers, Kelly Clowers I was under the impression that Apple were one of the main opposers to using free codecs in-place of their proprietary QuickTime. Also, when was the last time you ever knew Microsoft to go with standarised formats when they can just as easily push one of their own? Even the image formats in the early days were an area of debate. Does anyone remember the time when there was still the threat of the licensing issue surrounding the Gif format? It was this very issue that cause the PNG format to be created. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk I remember the Unisys LZW patent issue. The problem is that the situation surrounding GIF at the time and the situation we have now is totally different. Technically, LZW compression didn't have to be used with GIFs, though that practically didn't happen. And now we have a situation that companies like Apple and Microsoft themselves created, with the crazy redundant and overly broad patents. None of the companies on the MPEG-LA want to fix the situation because over half of them only make money through patent licenses. Additionally, most patents covering the video formats are unfortunately core to the implementation of the codecs. As an earlier mail said, video codecs are hard to design, much less implement. Video codec companies that spend a lot of RD time do deserve to make money on their hard work. However, when every single codec is in trouble because of overly broad patents, we have problems. I've said it earlier that I'd like to have some baseline codecs specified. Can we at least add Vorbis and WAV (and/or FLAC) to the baseline codecs for the audio tag? Nobody has really complained about it, so why not put that back? At least then, one issue with codecs is resolved. Finally, spending time on if's is not going to do anything. For the purposes of these discussions should assume that Google will not open up VP8 or any other codec owned by On2. We need to work with what we have NOW, not what we MAY have LATER. If Google announces tomorrow that they open up VP8 in the same way that Theora was, then great! But if we focus on if's like that, we'll never get anywhere.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote: 2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com: When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The GIF format made things hairy later, but with JPEG and PNG, the issues eventually resolved themselves. But the img tag was made at a time when there was no format soup for images... Or at least, not one nearly as serious a problem as the video tag. Also, image formats are less complicated to implement than video, both in the codec itself and the fact that images don't have to worry about subtitles, containers, seeking, sound, etc. Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and Vorbis at least. That was the recommendation before all codec references where removed. Currently among HTML5 browsers, I believe only Safari does not support Vorbis (they all support pcm wav). Safari uses QuickTime, so if Apple would bundle XiphQT, Safari would be set. Who knows what MS is planning for IE9, but I don't think they would object too much to having Vorbis as an option, especially if they are using DirectShow. A great many high-profile games have used Vorbis, including MS-published Halo and Fable. Really, the audio situation seems fairly manageable. Vorbis even has an advantage in size/quality over most other codecs, especially the so-common MP3. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless somebody else has any other decent reasonably available open source, royalty-free codec that can be used for the video and audio tags? Well, if Google frees VP8... Cheers, Kelly Clowers I was under the impression that Apple were one of the main opposers to using free codecs in-place of their proprietary QuickTime. For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec (especially since Vorbis has a lot of high profile use that should have drawn out any patent trolls) , and that is what Apple supposedly is worried about. Also, when was the last time you ever knew Microsoft to go with standarised formats when they can just as easily push one of their own? shug MS isn't quite who they used to be. They open-source things, and put things under the open specification promise, and they seem to be very serious about CSS3 and (X)HTML5 standards now. I think there is at least a chance of them supporting Vorbis. Cheers, Kelly Clowers
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On 28 March 2010 21:11, Kelly Clowers kelly.clow...@gmail.com wrote: For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec (especially since Vorbis has a lot of high profile use that should have drawn out any patent trolls) , and that is what Apple supposedly is worried about. The catch with Vorbis is that if you support it, whoever owns the MP3 patents charges you a lot more. (That's why I have an MP3 player that does Ogg Vorbis but does not mention the fact in the packaging, documentation or advertising in any manner whatsoever.) - d.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 13:11 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote: On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote: 2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com: When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The GIF format made things hairy later, but with JPEG and PNG, the issues eventually resolved themselves. But the img tag was made at a time when there was no format soup for images... Or at least, not one nearly as serious a problem as the video tag. Also, image formats are less complicated to implement than video, both in the codec itself and the fact that images don't have to worry about subtitles, containers, seeking, sound, etc. Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and Vorbis at least. That was the recommendation before all codec references where removed. Currently among HTML5 browsers, I believe only Safari does not support Vorbis (they all support pcm wav). Safari uses QuickTime, so if Apple would bundle XiphQT, Safari would be set. Who knows what MS is planning for IE9, but I don't think they would object too much to having Vorbis as an option, especially if they are using DirectShow. A great many high-profile games have used Vorbis, including MS-published Halo and Fable. Really, the audio situation seems fairly manageable. Vorbis even has an advantage in size/quality over most other codecs, especially the so-common MP3. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless somebody else has any other decent reasonably available open source, royalty-free codec that can be used for the video and audio tags? Well, if Google frees VP8... Cheers, Kelly Clowers I was under the impression that Apple were one of the main opposers to using free codecs in-place of their proprietary QuickTime. For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec (especially since Vorbis has a lot of high profile use that should have drawn out any patent trolls) , and that is what Apple supposedly is worried about. Also, when was the last time you ever knew Microsoft to go with standarised formats when they can just as easily push one of their own? shug MS isn't quite who they used to be. They open-source things, and put things under the open specification promise, and they seem to be very serious about CSS3 and (X)HTML5 standards now. I think there is at least a chance of them supporting Vorbis. Cheers, Kelly Clowers I see MS as the same they've always been. The open specification that they have for their document formats they've tried to change already because they don't follow it themselves. The recent open source code they gave to the Linux kernel was only given because they were obliged to, as they'd used GPL'd code themselves, and the GPL required their resulting code to be given back to the community. In the area of web standards, well, as any web developer knows, it's an absolute mess at the moment, with each version of their browser behaving completely differently, and even IE8 has only just caught up to where other browsers have been for a long time. As such, I can't see them supporting much (anything?) beyond what Windows Media Player will support by default. Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 March 2010 21:11, Kelly Clowers kelly.clow...@gmail.com wrote: For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec (especially since Vorbis has a lot of high profile use that should have drawn out any patent trolls) , and that is what Apple supposedly is worried about. The catch with Vorbis is that if you support it, whoever owns the MP3 patents charges you a lot more. (That's why I have an MP3 player that does Ogg Vorbis but does not mention the fact in the packaging, documentation or advertising in any manner whatsoever.) That would be crazy, cause no MP3 patents apply to Vorbis. You are able to use Vorbis without an MP3 license and the MPEG-LA should not be able to charge you more just because your want to support both codecs in your product. I believe that would not be legal. Do you have a concrete example, like a quote or something, that confirms this? Regards, Silvia.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Aaron Franco wrote: Due to the proprietary nature of the H.264 codec and the expensive licensing fees that go along with it, I propose that the MPEGLA and the Licensors of the codec disclose the patents royalty free if the codec is included as a part of the HTML5 specification. I am aware that this is already a requirement of the W3C, but it seems the license has not been disclosed yet. This mailing list is neither an MPEG-LA mailing list nor a W3C mailing list, so you may not have much success with this topic here. From the WHATWG's perspective, a royalty-free codec that everyone is willing to implement would be great, but currently we are not aware of any such codec existing. Unless anyone has any concrete new information on the topic, e.g. in the form of browser vendors agreeing to all implement the same codec, there is not much point rehashing the issue. Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the specification, but the fact that such licensing is being considered for what is supposed to be open free is counter productive to the advancement of web technologies. I feel we cannot allow companies like Microsoft and Apple to take advantage of such patents. Allowing the H. 264 to be a part of the spec without it being royalty free only gives those corporations more control over invention and publication on the internet. The WHATWG and the HTML5 spec should be focusing on creating a breeding ground of innovation and invention. Not looking for the quickest route to implementation. In reply to your question, the outlined goals of the W3C state the following in regards to proprietary patents being included in their recommendations: http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice establish Royalty-Free implementation as a goal for Recommendations produced by new and re-chartered Working Groups; encourage maximum disclosure of patents that might prevent a W3C Recommendation from being implemented on a Royalty-Free basis; provide a process for addressing situations in which the goal of Royalty-Free implementation may not be attainable. Allowing the H.264 codec in the spec goes against all of these principles. On Mar 28, 2010, at 2:07 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote: Hello WHATWG, Due to the proprietary nature of the H.264 codec and the expensive licensing fees that go along with it, I propose that the MPEGLA and the Licensors of the codec disclose the patents royalty free if the codec is included as a part of the HTML5 specification. I am aware that this is already a requirement of the W3C, but it seems the license has not been disclosed yet. The licensing income from mpeg codecs results to billions of dollars per year in aggregate. What reason would the patent owners have for forgoing this income? I believe that for some of the licensing companies the royalty income from these formats is their only income. Even if the adoption of alternative codecs in the context of the web severely reduced income from H.264, some income is still more than no income. Without a reasonable response to these questions I can't see how such a discussion on that whatwg list could have hope of being productive.
Re: [whatwg] Video Tag Proposal
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote: I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the specification, but the fact that such licensing is being considered for what is supposed to be open free is counter productive to the advancement of web technologies. I feel we cannot allow companies like Microsoft and Apple to take advantage of such patents. Allowing the H.264 to be a part of the spec without it being royalty free only gives those corporations more control [snip] Ah! Now I understand. H.264 is not under consideration as part of spec, and I don't believe that anyone has ever even tendered a serious proposal that it be considered as part of the specification for exactly the reasons that you've enumerated. It wasn't clear to me that you were unaware of this, I thought you were attempting to propose a way— though, sadly, an unworkable one— in which it could be considered. Cheers!
