Chris Wilson wrote:
Shelley Powers [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
Lachlan Hunt [mailto:[email protected]] wrote:
implement. When the requirement for Vorbis and Theora was first added
to the spec, and Apple objected, we looked at the situation and searched
long and hard for an alternative that would address their concerns.
Precisely.
And the alternative is?
For a video codec that can be mandated in HTML5? As I've said before, I'm not
sure there is one. The original MPEG, perhaps?
The problem I see is that video is a patent-laden area, and there's been a for-pay
industry initiative around H.264 et al; though I recognize why that is untenable
for the open source community, for projects like Mozilla, and why some other
vendors like Opera might just not want to pay the price, I would beg indulgence
from others in understanding that just because On2 Technologies donated VP3 with
an appropriate controversy does not mean that it is without risk or cost,
particularly to a vendor with large revenues. It's been stated[1] that MP3 or
H.264 might also have vulnerabilities to unknown patents; though that is
technically true, it is highly unlikely that a holder of such a patent would not
have come out of the woodwork by now, given the obvious profitability of pressing
such a patent (after all, Fovent made > $100m in two years before the JPEG
patent was invalidated) and fairly unlikely that the MPEG-LA would not attempt to
buy the rights. I expect it's unlikely that such a patent pool protection would
be set up for Theora, as vendors want to have to pay zero money to use it.
As always, I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
And if we were to proceed with the requirement, as Ian correctly surmised,
we'd simply have two of the leading implementation choose not to implement
that part of the spec (at least until the patent clock were to run out,
which is quite a while in the future) - which of course, does not further
interoperability, which is the whole point.
I've never seen Microsoft reluctant to ignore specifications in the
past, so the situation you describe is not new. Oddly enough, the web
still continues to progress. There is something to be said for using an
HTML specification to describe a web of the future, rather than allow it
to be used by vendors as some kind of current day validation [1].
Let's not mud-sling. We're all here, presumably, because we want to improve
interoperability, and make an Open Web. Open, to me, means everyone can
implement, and without penalties that are specific to a specific set of
vendors. Just as H.264 would fail that test, I think Theora fails it too - due
to the strong concern over unknown video technique patents. I wish that were
not so, because I actually WOULD like to mandate a codec, but I don't see a
fair one to mandate. Perhaps mandate Theora OR H.264?
I was not indulging in mud slinging. I stated what I perceived to be
reality.
And the reality is, that people have a way of working around gaps in
coverage. I think making a formal decision in HTML 5 because of what one
or two vendors' decide, does not leave the door open to innovation, and
eventual progress.
I would be disappointed if HTML 5 did little more than document today's
reality.
Not quite true. Though certainly I think EOT has a lot to recommend it
(not least of which its deployment across 65% of the current browser
market, and precisely that segment that updates least often), I've
consistently said for a couple of years now that we'd accept another
solution if it were acceptable for enabling commercial font vendors.
I believe George Bush had a 65% approval rating at one time.
Indeed, for about a year, from September 11, 2001 through around November of
2002.
How is this relevant to this discussion? It isn't, except to demonstrate
that nothing lasts forever.
I never said it did, and you can certainly take the viewpoint that Microsoft's
opinions are irrelevant, because you believe their share will eventually
decrease to the point of irrelevance. I'm not betting on that, personally.
But regardless, note that I said that share is across the market that deploys
least often; I've done projections on that for web fonts specifically, and a
BEST case for any solution other than EOT deploying to 90+% of the browser
market is like 5 years from now. That was all.
I would never think Microsoft irrelevant in the web world.
I'm not particularly surprised that [Microsoft] haven't said they will support
it, as they, like many companies, tend to keep information about future
products confidential.
Correct.
No offense, but foolish, short sighted, counter-productive. Web
developers and designers consider IE the tool of the devil. Even a hint
that Microsoft will eventually support SVG, the Canvas element, or XHTML
would go a long ways to generating a more favorable view of the company
and the browser. One can't count on 65% forever.
1) No offense, but that's a short-sighted viewpoint that doesn't consider that
browser vendors are, in fact, in competition, and some of them (in fact, pretty
much all of them other than Mozilla, in my opinion) keep at least some elements
of what they are planning to do hidden.
2) ...And I am not now, and have never been, in control of the IE disclosure policy.
Railed against it for extended periods, in fact. Indeed, personally I would be more
(though not "totally") open about planning; however, that has some significant
downsides too.
I can understand vendors keeping quiet about their proprietary
innovations, but I have a difficult time with browser vendors being
reluctant to make simple assertions of adherence to open standards.
I would think that providing a roadmap for open standards compliance to
be not only useful, but essential. To keep people guessing, is the same
as acting, deliberately, to undermine the standards. In my opinion, it
is unconscionable.
That hasn't changed either, and I do not expect Microsoft to suddenly object to
an XML syntax for HTML.
So, Microsoft is committed to supporting XHTML? Cool, good to know.
I would great appreciate your not twisting my words, or my participation in
this conversation would be foolhardy. I've learned from long experience to be
intentional about what I say, and that's not a rephrasing of what I said. I
made no commitment to supporting anything (and am not, in fact, in a position
to make any such commitment on IE's behalf) - I stated that I do not expect
Microsoft to start objecting to an XML syntax for HTML. I've tried to be
forthcoming, from the first day I joined the HTML WG, about what I think is
egregious for Microsoft, even when it is an unpopular stance - and some of
those issues might still be open (e.g. the lack of versioning in the DOCTYPE);
however, I don't personally believe that an XML syntax for HTML is one of them,
and I don't think I've heard any Microsoft person say that, in public or in
private.
My interest is not to get you into trouble, so I apologize for putting
you, personally, into a difficult position.
But this discussion does demonstrate a problem: you're giving your
opinion, that you don't think Microsoft will file a protest about an XML
serialization of HTML, but no one at Microsoft will provide anything
specific about IE support for XHTML. So we don't know if there will
continue to be a gap in XHTML support in the future, or not.
Just because no formal protest has been given, doesn't make the gap any
less of an issue. So why do we leave XHTML in HTML 5, but change the
text associated with video? There is a great deal of inconsistency with
the decisions being made as regards what is, or is not, including in HTML 5.
I don't agree with Sam's alternative, which is people make their own
versions of HTML5. modified to fit their own agenda, and we let the
copies somehow duke it out at some point [3]. But the HTML WG seems to
support the concept, and I don't want to continue being a road block.
I don't support making copies of HTML5 and letting them duke it out; I do
support people making explicit proposals for what they'd like to see. I may
still disagree with those proposals, of course (e.g. I disagree with Rob
Sayre's proposal to require Ogg codecs).
This doesn't necessarily agree with what Sam has proposed. But I may
have misinterpreted Sam.
-Chris
Shelley
