On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 11:31 -0700, Kevin Marks wrote:
On 3/23/07, Christian F.K. Schaller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 08:12 -0700, Kevin Calhoun wrote:
On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
MPEG4 adoption to the web has been
On Mar 26, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 11:31 -0700, Kevin Marks wrote:
Are you talking container or codecs here? AVI is a significant
container format, with some variant of MPEG4 codecs in.
My point was that the MPEG4 standard, including both its
Kevin Marks schrieb:
Now, if you want a fallback standard that is genuinely widely
interoperating without patent issues, you could pick QuickTime with JPEG
video frames and uncompressed audio. Millions of digital cameras support
this format already, as do all quicktime implementations back to
PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:49:00
To:Håkon Wium Lie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Codecs (was Re: Apple Proposal for Timed Media
Elements)
On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
I think having a single baseline
Not in the EU, no such thing as a software patent.
On 23 Mar 2007, at 04:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
MPEG-4 is proprietary, because it is covered by patents.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CSS is covered by
patents,
HTML is covered by
PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:49:00
To:Håkon Wium Lie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Codecs (was Re: Apple Proposal for Timed Media
Elements)
On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
I think having a single baseline
Gareth Hay schrieb:
Not in the EU, no such thing as a software patent.
To my knowledge the MPEG patents are *not* software patents but are what
I know as Verfahrenspatente (crudely translated that would be Method
patents - anyone knowning the correct term?). Those patents are valid here.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
I actually agree with this -- I think that MPEG-4 already has lots of heavy
weight behind it and is quite a good format with lots of existing
implementations. Theora/Vorbis are definitely the upstarts in this; they
should live and die on their technical merits
It is an Urban Legend that there are no software patents in the EU. True
enough there is no 'EU' software patents, but a lot of member states do
have them. I suggest going the MPEG LA's webpage and looking at the
patent lists they have there for MPEG4. You will notice that a lot of
the patents are
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
This is true of hardware audio decoders, but not hardware video
decoders, which use dedicated circuit blocks. If Ogg suddenly became
popular it would likely be a several year pipeline before there were any
hardware decoders.
I'd say that any hardware player using
* Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
All w3c standards are royalty free and there is no reason why this
proposal should be different in that regard. And as Håkon Wium Lie
pointed out in another email, the latest SVG standard already mandates
Vorbis support, so half of what is needed is already
Hi Bjoern,
There is a w3c policy in place regarding this:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
Since I assume you knew about that I guess your claim about no guarantee
is more about 'there might be submarine patents', yes this is true. But
there is a major difference to a standard
Hi Gareth,
This is a strange way of looking at the issue. Once a patent is granted
it is by definition valid and enforceable. It is the people opposing it
who have to prove their non-legality at that point and not the other way
around. So sure a lot of software patents might be challenged around
Hi,
Even interoperability at the API and markup level would be a huge
step forward relative to the current state of web video. While also
having a single universally implemented codec would also be good,
that may not presently be feasible.
A huge step that does not go all the way is
Gareth Hay wrote:
At best, we can only conclude that this is a very grey area
throughout different regions of the world, and as such, is not only
out with the scope of this list, but possibly of the spec itself.
That's a non-sequitur.
Why does it not follow?
The fact that there is legal
I defer on the legal side, i really do,
On 23 Mar 2007, at 12:18, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
I mean what have we truly achieved if the new VIDEO element means that
web page developers still have to support Windows Media for Windows
clients, MPEG4 for Apple systems and Ogg for Linux/Unix
I am not denying the need to examine the legal situation when
deciding on our attitude to the codec question. I am denying that
the situation is so unclear that a person of ordinary intelligence
(and we have many people smarter than that) cannot understand the
shape of it and make
Also sprach Bjoern Hoehrmann:
the SVG 1.2 WD requires support for Ogg Vorbis:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/media.html
And as Håkon Wium Lie
pointed out in another email, the latest SVG standard already mandates
Vorbis support, so half of what is needed is already
Kevin Calhoun schrieb:
Just a quick correction here: QuickTime does support the MPEG-4
container format.
Okay, thanks for pointing that out so confusion doesn't spread.
When thinking of QuickTime I was mostly thinking of older .mov files
that you can still see floating around here and there
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 08:12 -0700, Kevin Calhoun wrote:
On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
MPEG4 adoption to the web has been poor from my point of view. Today
I'd
guess the absolute king in marketshare is Flash video, then following
Windows Media, then followed by
On Mar 23, 2007, at 8:29 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
Kevin Calhoun schrieb:
Just a quick correction here: QuickTime does support the MPEG-4
container format.
Okay, thanks for pointing that out so confusion doesn't spread.
When thinking of QuickTime I was mostly thinking of older .mov files
that
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
- Even if all browsers end up supporting Ogg Theora/Vorbis, these are
not the best-compression codecs available. So a large-scale video
content provider that wants to save on bandwidth may wish to provide
H.264/AAC content to those browsers that can handle it, even
On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:29 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
However, as others have pointed out, MIME types only represent the
container format and not the codecs inside, so content negotiation
would need to be extended to somehow allow audio and video codecs
to be presented in addition to
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
- As mentioned above, some devices may have a much harder time
implementing Ogg than other codecs. Although a SHOULD-level requirement
would excuse them, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have it if it might
be invoked often.
Ogg Theora decoding has been demonstrated
Robert O'Callahan / Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
- Placing requirements on format support would be unprecedented for
HTML specifications, which generally leave this up to the UA, with de
facto baseline support being decided by the market.
It's not unprecedented in W3C; the SVG 1.2 WD
On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
I think having a single baseline codec will make video immensely
more
attractive to authors than it otherwise would be. I also believe
from the
point of view of Mozilla (or any other open source project) Theora
is vastly
more attractive
On 3/22/07, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To the extent we have a media platform we want to promote, it is
MPEG-4, a format and codec family that is an ISO standard.
Not a particularly high bar for a Web standard.
This
format family is available in many hardware and software
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
MPEG-4 is proprietary, because it is covered by patents.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CSS is covered by patents,
HTML is covered by patents, the DOM is covered by patents, JavaScript is
covered by patents, and so forth. Proprietary
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CSS is covered by
patents,
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you don't [know] anything
about patents. Many engineers have trouble
On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The technologies I listed _are_ covered by patents, yet they are not
proprietary. This seems like a relevant counterexample to your
argument.
If I
On Mar 22, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
A fallback without a mandated 'minimum' codec is next to worthless.
Standards
with similar goals of interoperability, like DLNA, have ended up
choosing some
mandated codecs (which are all 'older' codecs) and some optional
higher
On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
* I'm concerned about the type attribute for content negotiation.
Historically, type attributes are very badly implemented and even
less
reliably used. Conditional fallback in general is badly
implemented and
bug-prone especially in the
- As mentioned above, some devices may have a much harder time
implementing Ogg than other codecs. Although a SHOULD-level
requirement would excuse them, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have
it if it might be invoked often.
OK, let's assume Theora is a bad format for some devices. If someone
On Mar 21, 2007, at 9:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
- As mentioned above, some devices may have a much harder time
implementing Ogg than other codecs. Although a SHOULD-level
requirement would excuse them, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have
it if it might be invoked often.
OK, let's
On 3/22/07, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are devices that have a hardware video decoder but not enough
CPU power for even relatively simple video. These could justifiably
omit Ogg under the SHOULD clause.
Is there something that prevents implementation of ogg hardware
35 matches
Mail list logo
