Dave Singer wrote:snip
Lastly, I feel a little hurt that Apple is
being so attacked when we take great efforts to develop, implement,
promote, and interoperate open systems and specifications, while there
are others in the industry who make no such efforts. Could the rhetoric
against us be
Nicholas Shanks schrieb:
Browsers don't (and shouldn't) include their own av decoders anyway.
Codec support is an operating system issue, and any browser installed on
my computer supports exactly the same set of codecs, which are the ones
made available via the OS (QuickTime APIs in my case,
On 27 Jun 2007, at 09:28, Maik Merten wrote:
Browsers don't rely on the OS to decode JPEG or PNG or GIF either
In my experience that seems to be exactly what they do do—rely on the
OS to provide image decoding (as with other AV media).
I say this because changes that had occurred in the OS
On 6/27/07, Nicholas Shanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27 Jun 2007, at 09:28, Maik Merten wrote:
Browsers don't rely on the OS to decode JPEG or PNG or GIF either
In my experience that seems to be exactly what they do do—rely on the
OS to provide image decoding (as with other AV media).
I
On 27 Jun 2007, at 11:55, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
In my experience...
You do not know what you are talking about. Firefox does not use OS
image decoders.
And I don't use Firefox, so my point is still valid. Please don't
inform me of what you think I know or do not know, it is impolite.
Nicholas Shanks schrieb:
This is only possible if the codec is free. I thought we were talking
about the problem of adding non-free codecs (namely WMV and MPEG4) to
free software, (possibly also involving reverse-engineering the codec).
Reverse-engineering doesn't lead to usable
On 6/28/07, Nicholas Shanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For your future reference, Robert, the browsers I am familiar with and was
referring to in my statement about image decoders are WebKit-based browsers,
OmniWeb 4.5 (historically), Camino and iCab 3. I avoid FireFox and Opera
due to their
Silvia Pfeiffer schrieb:
So a company which owns a patent on a standard that can bought and
read at freedom is just as bad as a company which owns a patent on a
standard that has absolutely no public documentation?
If you're talking about Ogg Theora, then you've got your facts wrong.
First
On 6/26/07, Spartanicus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Desktop client content support will determine the format most content
will be published in.
Interesting claim, however Apple so far has introduced AAC (high
quality drm-less) and MPEG4 for large audiences (OK, YouTube MPEG4 is
merely announced
timeless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Desktop client content support will determine the format most content
will be published in.
Interesting claim, however Apple so far has introduced AAC (high
quality drm-less) and MPEG4 for large audiences (OK, YouTube MPEG4 is
merely announced and not
I believe an aim of whatwg is a viable implementable standard that
reflects the realities of the web while encouraging innovation. MPEG4
is part of the web (a growing part too).
If I may, I'd like to echo Timeless's point here. I've been watching this
thread with great interest and believe I
Hello Jerason,
From a technical point-of-view, you make a very good argument.
However, I think it is inappropriate for the HTML spec to (directly or
indirectly) mandate people pay to implement it.
As you point out, H.263 is encumbered by patents and has licensing
costs associates with it.
Jerason Banes schrieb:
Out of those solutions, VP6, WMV, Sorenson, and RealVideo can
immediately be discarded for their lack of standardization. That leaves
H.263 and MPEG4 as the only viable options.
H.263 is not a bad choice, IMHO. It's well supported by nearly every
major video player,
Hi Charles,
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see a better option. The purpose
of the HTML5 spec is to provide a unified web applications platform that
supports the existing web in a practical manner. If the spec sticks with
Theora as the baseline implementation, it runs the risk of no
Jerason Banes schrieb:
* The spec can specify Theora as the baseline, very few browsers
will implement it, few users will use it (due to a lack of
support), and thus the intent of standardizing on a free format
will be lost.
Opera and Mozilla already have implemented
Jerason Banes schrieb:
If that's true, then I'm greatly relieved. VP3 (the source of Theora) is
generally compared to MPEG1, a standard far exceeded by H.263. I have
not seen any publicly available Theora benchmarks that would overturn
such impressions. (Do any exist?)
Most public benchmarks
On 6/26/07, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opera and Mozilla already have implemented (early) Ogg Vorbis and Ogg
Theora support.
And (if this thread is any indication) are likely to be the only ones.
Internet Explorer still holds the majority of the market, and Safari is
still the
Jerason Banes schrieb:
On 6/26/07, *Maik Merten* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opera and Mozilla already have implemented (early) Ogg Vorbis and Ogg
Theora support.
And (if this thread is any indication) are likely to be the only ones.
Internet Explorer
But I don't accept that idealistic advocacy regarding encoding format
support for the video element is pointless in the situation in which
we are today where the market leaders haven't yet decided what they are
going to do.
they havent? it seems pretty clear to me
adobe - push swf/flv/apollo
I don't quite get some of the arguments in the thread.
Browsers don't (and shouldn't) include their own av decoders anyway.
Codec support is an operating system issue, and any browser installed
on my computer supports exactly the same set of codecs, which are the
ones made available via the
On 26 Jun 2007, at 00:57, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
So a company which owns a patent on a standard that can bought and
read at freedom is just as bad as a company which owns a patent on a
standard that has absolutely no public documentation?
If you're talking about Ogg Theora, then you've got
Hi Jerason,
I think there may be a lack of information about Theora rather than
anything else.
On 6/27/07, Jerason Banes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I may, I'd like to echo Timeless's point here. I've been watching this
thread with great interest and believe I understand both sides of the
On 26 Jun 2007, at 17:46, Maik Merten wrote:
* The spec can be practical about implementing the video tag
and
specify H.263 or MPEG4 as a baseline. Existing multimedia
toolkits
can be reused in implementation and thus all browsers can
support
the standard. Users
On 6/27/07, Jerason Banes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question that I hate to ask (because it goes against my own grain to
ask it) is, which is more useful to the web market: Asking Windows users to
install Ogg/Theora codecs
Actually, we just ask them to install Firefox :-)
or asking Linux
Silvia Pfeiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Opera have already implemented support for Ogg Theora and the video tag.
(see http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5545573096553082541pr=goog-sl)
Opera has published a one off interim experimental build (Windows only)
with video support and native
I would like to make clear one more thing:
When I attended the iCommons Summit earlier this month, I have met the
project manager of the OLPC project, you know the $150 laptop for
children in developing nations, and the information that I have right
now is that it will not support proprietary
On 6/26/07, Silvia Pfeiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not true that Theora is not used today.
revision3.net is another site that uses/provides Theora.
http://revision3.net/diggnation
With videolan at least, the theora ones use less cpu than the other
formats, which makes it easier to
At 10:16 +1000 25/06/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Thanks Maciej for summarising Apple's position so nicely.
I think it's good that you have spelled it out:
Apple is happy to support MPEG-4, which has known patent encumberance
and unknown submarine patents, while Apple is not happy to support
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
This has
been discussed to death already, but here are our basic reasons:
- MPEG-4 is an ISO open standard (although unfortunately
patent-encumbered).
No-one is telling you not to support MPEG-4.
- H.264 offers considerably better quality at the same bitrate than
Dave Singer wrote:
What is more, no-one with
deep pockets has yet used the Ogg codecs seriously, and therefore there
is no honey pot to attract the submarines (hm, do submarines like
honey?). This is not the case with H.264 and AAC, as we have made, um,
some money using them, among others.
Hi Dave,
On 6/25/07, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:16 +1000 25/06/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Thanks Maciej for summarising Apple's position so nicely.
I think it's good that you have spelled it out:
Apple is happy to support MPEG-4, which has known patent encumberance
and
According to Wikipedia,
ATT is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged
MPEG-4 patent infringement.[1][2][3]
I would be fascinated to see a statement from Apple, Inc. regarding this.
It's also quite interesting that different portions of MPEG-4,
including different sections of
Dave Singer schrieb:
At 10:16 +1000 25/06/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
can I insert the same phrase you used and unknown submarine patents?
Otherwise you mis-characterize the position. What is more, no-one with
deep pockets has yet used the Ogg codecs seriously, and therefore there
is no
On 25 Jun 2007, at 13:21, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
According to Wikipedia,
ATT is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged
MPEG-4 patent infringement.[1][2][3]
I would be fascinated to see a statement from Apple, Inc. regarding
this.
Seeming they are already under risk
At 13:21 +0100 25/06/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
According to Wikipedia,
ATT is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged
MPEG-4 patent infringement.[1][2][3]
I would be fascinated to see a statement from Apple, Inc. regarding this.
I regret that we (like most companies)
Hello,
On 6/25/07, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
If Safari is encountering application/ogg and it can't decode that
stuff then redirect (after asking of course) the user to a fitting
QuickTime component download page on e.g. xiph.org or even automate the
process of installing a
Silvia Pfeiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No need to encode as a java applet - all you need to do is put the
java applet on the server together with your Ogg Theora content. And -
by all means - this is not supposed to be an end solution, but just a
fix to bridge the gap until all Browsers support
Forgive my intruston, as I have been a lurker on this discussion for some
months, and some of the discussion often goes over my head. This may have
been proposed (if it has, I apologize for wasting your time), and perhaps I
do not fully appreciate the implications - but perhaps a solution would
So a company which owns a patent on a standard that can bought and
read at freedom is just as bad as a company which owns a patent on a
standard that has absolutely no public documentation?
If you're talking about Ogg Theora, then you've got your facts wrong.
First of all, Ogg Theora is not
On 6/25/07, Spartanicus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main worry relates to the usability and accessibility of future audio
and video web content. Content including the wrapping should be free,
you don't quite mean that. if a content producer wants to make pay
content, it should be free to do
Hello,
(Sorry if this gets posted twice.)
On 6/25/07, timeless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/25/07, Spartanicus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My main worry relates to the usability and accessibility of future audio
and video web content. Content including the wrapping should be free,
you don't
On Sunday 24 June 2007 01:07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Such a development is a clear sign to change the spec to require
theora/vorbis support instead of just recommending it. A baseline
codec has to be a requirement.
Thus, I suggest to change the wording to User agents must support
Theora
Allan Sandfeld Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus, I suggest to change the wording to User agents must support
Theora video and Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format.
Or a clear sign that the video tag was doomed to failure anyway. I really
can't imagine Microsoft or even Apple
On 6/24/07, Spartanicus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Allan Sandfeld Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thus, I suggest to change the wording to User agents must support
Theora video and Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format.
Or a clear sign that the video tag was doomed to failure
Silvia Pfeiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A video element that is natively part of html and has a standard set
of API functions will enable applications that are impossible today,
even with embedded elements such as flash.
Imagine e.g. a mash-up of video extracts from several video hosting
sites
On 6/24/07, Silvia Pfeiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A video element that is natively part of html and has a standard set
of API functions will enable applications that are impossible today,
even with embedded elements such as flash.
Imagine e.g. a mash-up of video extracts from several video
On 6/24/07, Spartanicus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imo for content providers to choose video over Flash, client support
needs to be close to Flash. Requiring IE and Safari users to go and
download and install third party software to play content would imo be
considered too much of a hindrance when
Silvia Pfeiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imo for content providers to choose video over Flash, client support
needs to be close to Flash. Requiring IE and Safari users to go and
download and install third party software to play content would imo be
considered too much of a hindrance when
On 6/25/07, Spartanicus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I detest Java (resource hog, slow as wading through molasses)
and don't have it installed, so forgive my potential ignorance.
Don't we all hate java? ;-)
Why
create an HTML video element with the express purpose of supporting
video
On Jun 23, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
Dear WHATWG members,
It has come to my attention that Apple developers behind the WebKit
platform, which powers the web browser Safari, apparently intend to
support the video element of the HTML 5 spec, section 3.14.7. It's
all fine
On 6/25/07, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our current plan is to primarily support MPEG-4, including H.264/AVC
video and AAC audio. We may support other codecs as well - it won't
necessarily be the full set of codecs supported by QuickTime. This
has been discussed to death already,
Dear WHATWG members,
It has come to my attention that Apple developers behind the WebKit
platform, which powers the web browser Safari, apparently intend to
support the video element of the HTML 5 spec, section 3.14.7. It's
all fine and well, but not a victory for web interoperability, as they
52 matches
Mail list logo
