It's not free as it is patent encumbered, see [[H.264#Patent_licensing]].
--Falcorian
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Mike.lifeguard mikelifegu...@fastmail.fmwrote:
Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not
that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't
Silly me, I never thought anyone would even consider having a standard
that wasn't completely open.
-Mike
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 00:16 -0700, Falcorian wrote:
It's not free as it is patent encumbered, see [[H.264#Patent_licensing]].
--Falcorian
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:50 PM,
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 13:26, Amir E. Aharoniamir.ahar...@gmail.com wrote:
But it's even better not to push OGG through a committee, but to make
it the de-facto standard by just using it as much as possible and
recommending Wikipedia readers to install a browser that supports it.
And like it
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Hay (Husky)hus...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the
HTML5 video element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats
(Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not
specify a default
http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the
HTML5 video element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats
(Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not
specify a
2009/7/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
H264 already plays in, IIRC, 98% of browsers through flash.
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Adobe claims around 99% of all web
users to have Flash installed.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Hay (Husky) hus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Adobe claims around 99% of all web
users to have
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
h264 codecs.
No, it's not. H.264 is patented and you need to pay licensing fees to
use it. It's not an open standard and should not be used on the web
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
h264 codecs.
No, it's not. H.264
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
A compromise is a win-win.
Compromising is not a good idea per se. It's only a good idea if it
advances your goals more than refusing to compromises. Some
compromises are bad and should not be accepted. If you put enough
2009/7/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
A compromise is a win-win. In the absence of a compromise its a lose-lose.
Except that H264 wins since almost all of us already support it.
Relying on something rendered radioactive by the software patents
attached to it is not a win.
It would be
Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not
that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a
format for whatever reason?
Thanks,
-Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
13 matches
Mail list logo
