If video supports fallback though, that 20% is enough to bootstrap and
build support, especially as we all hope that that 20% continues to grow.
However, I do agree that the codec discussion should be tabled and that
we should get back to the spec discussion... I've been ignoring much of
On 4/2/07, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Usually consumer hardware doesn't receive feature upgrades after it
shipped,
since you're using (buying?) the n800, I wonder if you're counting it
as a consumer product.
so most of the already installed hardware base won't get an
upgrade to
timeless schrieb:
On 4/2/07, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Usually consumer hardware doesn't receive feature upgrades after it
shipped,
since you're using (buying?) the n800, I wonder if you're counting it
as a consumer product.
I do count it as a consumer device, but it's way more
At 16:42 +0200 4/04/07, Maik Merten wrote:
Does this include the sony walkman w950i or modern nokia phones, or
any phone for which opera mini or gmail (downloadable standalone
application) are available?
That's just another reason why we can't rely on dedicated video decoding
hardware -
At 18:46 +0100 4/04/07, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007, at 08:03, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote:
I do agree that the codec discussion should be tabled
I think you mean shelved. Or did you mean we have hit a wall here,
so shelve it and get the chair to table it on the W3C floor? :-)
Hey Gerv,
On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors, it
won't cost us anything in patent license fees.
Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and Microsoft,
I guess) a financial
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
Patent risk and unsuitability for limited processing power devices.
(Which I'm tired of repeating.) Opportunity cost of putting engineering
work into a less useful codec vs more useful ones.
I'd say as H.264 is far more complex technology the risk for submarine
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors, it
won't cost us anything in patent license fees.
Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and Microsoft, I
guess) a financial competitive advantage over other
I really think that this conversation has morphed from 'should HTML
recommend or mandate codecs' into mostly 'why apple should support
ogg/theora'. Even the first question is a pretty tangential one to
the design of the tag itself, the CSS, and so on.
Surely people have comments or questions
Dave Singer schrieb:
At 18:44 +0200 3/04/07, Maik Merten wrote:
Personally I don't see a reason why Apple couldn't simply queue an Ogg
Theora component provided by a 3rd party into the QuickTime component
Alas, that wouldn't be Apple then that was complying, merely that we
make it possible
Maik Merten schrieb:
This is vastly off-topic, but is there a formalized way for 3rd parties
to register their qt components and have them in the download service?
Oh, didn't look hard enough yet.
http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/qtcdform.html
Maik Merten
On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors,
it won't cost us anything in patent license fees.
Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and
Microsoft, I
On Tuesday 2007-04-03 11:52 -0700, Dave Singer wrote:
Surely people have comments or questions on other aspects of our
proposal? There is new stuff, new ideas, and open areas, all ripe
for discussionwe have engineers standing by, eager to refine and
improve the video tag design
On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2007-04-03 11:52 -0700, Dave Singer wrote:
Surely people have comments or questions on other aspects of our
proposal? There is new stuff, new ideas, and open areas, all ripe
for discussionwe have engineers standing by, eager to
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Kevin Calhoun wrote:
A number of the ideas from Apple's HTML proposal have already been
incorporated into the current working draft of Web Applications 1.0.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/, naturally.
And I'm actively working on incorporating more of
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
This isn't the first time you've restated something in what seems like a
needlessly inflammatory way. Your earlier message in the thread
basically said that unless Apple implements Ogg Theora, we don't
actually have a commitment to interoperability.
Close. Unless
On Apr 3, 2007, at 21:52, Dave Singer wrote:
OK, I am not a lawyer and I do not represent the patent holders,
and it is not my job to help build their business. I have enough
trouble building ours. However, there are both reference and open-
source implementations of MPEG codecs (e.g.
Also sprach Dave Singer:
I really think that this conversation has morphed from 'should HTML
recommend or mandate codecs' into mostly 'why apple should support
ogg/theora'. Even the first question is a pretty tangential one to
the design of the tag itself, the CSS, and so on.
I agree with this. The tag isn't worth much to the Web if it's not
interoperable among *all* Web browsers. That includes,
unfortunately, Internet Explorer. That is why I think trying to pick
a baseline format in the WhatWG is premature. Until the video
element moves to the HTML WG and
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Reasons Apple would like MPEG4 + H.264 + AAC to be the preferred codec
stack
--
- We already need to support these for video production and consumer
electronics (so no extra patent cost to us)
I don't understand this point. There's no extra patent cost in
Gervase Markham wrote:
I'll let others comment on this. But I would note that JPEG2000 is
technically superior to JPEG, but hasn't been widely implemented due to
patent issues.
Correction: in part due to patent issues.
The problem is not that it's $5 million, it's that the amount is unknown
On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Reasons Apple would like MPEG4 + H.264 + AAC to be the preferred
codec stack
--
- We already need to support these for video production and
consumer electronics (so no extra patent cost to us)
I don't
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:12:07AM -0700, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
I don't think Theora (or Dirac) are inherently more interoperable
than other codecs. There's only one implementation of each so far, so
there's actually less proof of this than for other codecs.
Just to clarify, there are
On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:50 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
It's not immediately clear to me that a Mozilla license would not
cover
redistribution, for instance the license fees paid by OS vendors
generally cover redistribution when the OS is bundled with a PC. I
think
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
Mozilla can also be compiled and distributed by third parties. E.g.
Debian distributes a slightly modified version of Firefox as Iceweasel
AFAIK. They wouldn't be covered by a license Mozilla buys.
This may be the case, but it is not immediately obvious to me.
On Apr 2, 2007, at 21:12, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Let me add other reasons why Mozilla (for whom, again, I am not
speaking) might want to specify Theora/Dirac:
- They have a strong commitment to interoperability
I don't think Theora (or Dirac) are inherently more interoperable
than
At 23:07 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Some implementations only support AVC level up to a magic level that
you have to know.
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can
play audio and video up to any bitrate, screensize, channel count
etc., without dropping
Dave Singer schrieb:
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can play
audio and video up to any bitrate, screensize, channel count etc.,
without dropping frames, getting behind, decoding badly, or other
limits? That would be quite an achievement...more impressive than
On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:13, Dave Singer wrote:
At 23:07 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Some implementations only support AVC level up to a magic level
that you have to know.
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can
play audio and video up to any bitrate,
At 22:27 +0200 2/04/07, Maik Merten wrote:
Dave Singer schrieb:
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can play
audio and video up to any bitrate, screensize, channel count etc.,
without dropping frames, getting behind, decoding badly, or other
limits? That would
Le 2007-03-30 à 16:41, Maciej Stachowiak a écrit :
I think achieving broader interoperability will require us to find
ways around this impasse, rather than bludgeoning each other until
one side caves.
Isn't Theora already more interoperable than anything else? I mean,
there is a plugin
On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:33, Dave Singer wrote:
You miss the point. MPEG defines levels exactly so that bitstreams
can say you need to be level X to be able to play this and
players can implement up to level X and interoperability is well-
defined and assured. Levels *improve* the
At 23:29 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:13, Dave Singer wrote:
At 23:07 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Some implementations only support AVC level up to a magic level
that you have to know.
are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can
On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:55, Dave Singer wrote:
If you are arguing that MPEG makes *too much* use of profiles, then
maybe that's an argument to have
The foremost problem is that they are all marketed as H.264. Things
that are incompatible should have different marketing names.
A different
Dave Singer schrieb:
You miss the point. MPEG defines levels exactly so that bitstreams can
say you need to be level X to be able to play this and players can
implement up to level X and interoperability is well-defined and
assured. Levels *improve* the interoperability, not make it worse.
At 14:40 -0700 2/04/07, Ralph Giles wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:55:38PM -0700, Dave Singer wrote:
[...]Does Ogg/Theora have a 'required features' or
'required version' in the bitstream?
Theora doesn't currently have any profiles, and the spec
has no optional decoder
Maik Merten wrote:
Well, for text browsers or on platforms that don't have the processing
juice to decode it (then they couldn't decode MPEG4 whatever-part
either). I'd say that are platforms that usually don't even have feature
complete browsers anyway.
Just wanted to note that text
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
- They are technically superior to Ogg (seekable container format,
significantly better bitrate for video)
Just to make sure no misunderstandings are generated: Of course Ogg is
seekable, even over HTTP (not just theoretically, but also in practice
as demonstrated by
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Gervase Markham wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
No, writing it into the HTML specification is not a commercial reason.
Assuming you have commercial reasons for supporting HTML 5 (which I
suspect you do, otherwise you wouldn't be here) then having Ogg
On Mar 29, 2007, at 6:32 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
That's an attempt to force the issue by fiat.
But any specification for anything could be described as an
attempt to force the issue by fiat. That' just loaded language.
Let me frame the conversation a bit
Maciej Stachowiak said:
I have no idea if any of
these is practical or even desirable, but I think we will need to
think along these lines rather than trying to bless one format
without consensus.
Then it might be best to bless two. One for the vendors who have payed
for MPEG4 and one for
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
We think your reasons are strong and worthy of respect. That is why we
are not trying to force our codec preference on you, but rather propose
to leave this issue open. We ask you to respect our reasons as well,
rather than trying to force us to go along with your
Dave Singer wrote:
At 9:48 +0100 28/03/07, Gervase Markham wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
Yes. I re-iterate; we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora
codecs; we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them,
and we'd rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue. It
just
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Gervase Markham wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
No, writing it into the HTML specification is not a commercial reason.
Assuming you have commercial reasons for supporting HTML 5 (which I
suspect you do, otherwise you wouldn't be here) then having Ogg
specified gives you
On 3/30/07, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Gervase Markham wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
No, writing it into the HTML specification is not a commercial reason.
Assuming you have commercial reasons for supporting HTML 5 (which I
suspect you do, otherwise you
At 19:28 +0200 27/03/07, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
That is a matter of perception. Flash player which is the de-facto
standard at this point provides support on at least linux, windows and
Mac. We do risk that if this element is provided it could replace
Flash video with something that
At 20:30 +0200 27/03/07, Maik Merten wrote:
Actually the current audio draft requires user agents to support PCM
in a .wav container (that's way stronger than what can be found in the
video section). I guess your points apply there, too?
Yes, technically I think we should stay clean and
At 6:40 +1000 28/03/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 3/28/07, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We really feel that the HTML spec. should say no more about video and
audio formats than it does about image formats (which is merely to give
examples), and we should strive
Dave Singer wrote:
Yes. I re-iterate; we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora codecs;
we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them, and we'd
rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue. It just gets
ugly (like the 3G exception).
But that's circular reasoning. We
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 16:57 +0900, Dave Singer wrote:
At 19:28 +0200 27/03/07, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
That is a matter of perception. Flash player which is the de-facto
standard at this point provides support on at least linux, windows and
Mac. We do risk that if this element is
On 3/28/07, Christian F.K. Schaller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 16:57 +0900, Dave Singer wrote:
At 19:28 +0200 27/03/07, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
Apple has
neither power or desire to stop people implementing the video tag on
any platform, and indeed the whole point
On Mar 27, 2007, at 23:40, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
I would be curious for the reasons that 3GPP has taken the requirement
of vorbis out of the spec. Was that a decision based on technical
reasons and could you please explain what these technical reasons
were?
First: I don't know about what
Henri Sivonen schrieb:
When Nokia guys show up Open Source meetings, the FAQ about Maemo is why
they don't ship Vorbis support. The manager of the Maemo operation has
said that Nokia is afraid of Vorbis having some Fraunhofer-owned stuff
in it after all, so Nokia does not want to ship Vorbis
At 18:14 +0300 28/03/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Mar 27, 2007, at 23:40, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
I would be curious for the reasons that 3GPP has taken the requirement
of vorbis out of the spec. Was that a decision based on technical
reasons and could you please explain what these technical
At 9:48 +0100 28/03/07, Gervase Markham wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
Yes. I re-iterate; we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora
codecs; we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them,
and we'd rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue. It
just gets ugly (like the 3G
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 03:18:04 +0200, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We really feel that the HTML spec. should say no more about video and
audio formats than it does about image formats (which is merely to
give examples), and we should strive independently for audio/video
convergence. We'd
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Also, I think the HTML specification should mandate (as SHOULD-level
requirement, probably) support for the various supported image formats as
it gives a clear indication of what authors can rely on and what user
agents have to implement in order to support the
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:41:28 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Also, I think the HTML specification should mandate (as SHOULD-level
requirement, probably) support for the various supported image formats
as it gives a clear indication of what authors
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Also, I think the HTML specification should mandate (as SHOULD-level
requirement, probably) support for the various supported image formats as
it gives a clear indication of what authors can rely on and what user
agents have to implement
Dave Singer schrieb:
On the question of whether a video or audio tag should mention the
codecs: we're really very supportive of the need for convergence and
interoperability. For example, I took a video iPod to an MPEG meeting a
week or two after its intro, and at the meeting I got five
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* James Graham wrote:
I think you are mistaking a requirement for all UAs with one for UAs that
support the display of images. For UAs that support the display of images,
authors rely on GIF, JPEG and PNG support being avaliable. The specifcation
should reflect the
Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, too bad there's no royality-free, termless licensing for a
baseline of H.264. The current terms (
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf ) absolutely question the
suitability of H.264 for free browsers (beer and speech). The licensing
costs can
* James Graham wrote:
Partly it's for documentation: a statement of what you need to produce a
functional web browser. Partly to give vendors a well-defined target; it is
only
very recently that IE has grown full support for PNG files, for example.
I have a hard time following you. Could you
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
I have a hard time following you. Could you rephrase what pain it would
solve, and why this is the best solution, if the HTML specification in-
cludes documentation what you need in terms of explicit interaction with
the document layer to produce a functional graphical
At 13:26 +0200 27/03/07, Maik Merten wrote:
It's good to know that Apple considers interoperability as something
important.
Of course in case of the iPod the highly proprietary DRM scheme is
preventing true interoperability if someone condiders DRM a must for his
business needs and Apple's
* James Graham wrote:
The pain of having things that everyone knows are needed to make a useful
HTML
reading device but are not documented as such. A specification is
documentation
both of the language and what needs to be done to implement a UA to read it
and
I see no reason to arbitarily
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 09:04 -0700, Dave Singer wrote:
At 13:26 +0200 27/03/07, Maik Merten wrote:
It's good to know that Apple considers interoperability as something
important.
Of course in case of the iPod the highly proprietary DRM scheme is
preventing true interoperability if someone
Anne van Kesteren:
Also, I think the HTML specification should mandate (as SHOULD-
level requirement, probably) support for the various supported
image formats as it gives a clear indication of what authors can
rely on and what user agents have to implement in order to support
the web.
Dave Singer schrieb:
We'd really like to get to a good design on this, as the mess of
embed/object plug-ins we feel is limiting both functionality and
interoperability.
Yeah, and the work to get good functionality into the video element
obviously can and should go on without having to worry
Hi Dave,
On 3/28/07, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We really feel that the HTML spec. should say no more about video and
audio formats than it does about image formats (which is merely to give
examples), and we should strive independently for audio/video
convergence. We'd really
James Graham wrote:
Agreed (much as I dislike Flash). Unfortunatley the fact that Flash is
effectivley implemented by a single binary plugin and the public
specification
has a no implementations license makes this impossible to include.
Just wanted to note that, strictly speaking, it
Hi
sorry I wasn't responding last week; I was out of the office,
catching up today. Thanks for all the comments!
On the question of whether a video or audio tag should mention the
codecs: we're really very supportive of the need for convergence and
interoperability. For example, I took
72 matches
Mail list logo
