HTML5 video element codec debate reignited

Posted Feb 5, 2010 19:01 UTC (Fri) by n8willis (subscriber, #43041)
In reply to: HTML5 video element codec debate reignited by Simetrical
Parent article: HTML5 video element codec debate reignited

The cause-and-effect given here is exactly backwards. HTML5 does not mandate any format because the war is underway. The editor, Ian Hickson, is not willing to add anything to the standard if a major player refuses to implement it, because then it's not a standard, it's a work of fiction. Apple refuses to implement Theora support, and Mozilla refuses to implement H.264 support, regardless of what the spec says, so it would be pointless to try mandating either it would just make the spec less useful to anyone who expects it to be consistently implemented as written.

I don't agree. I don't think it's cause-and-effect, for starters -- these two activities are intertwined and simultaneous. The H.264 stakeholders know and accept that W3C will not include a royalty-collecting format in a standard; they are not seeking to have H.264 be declared part of the standard, they are trying to prevent any competing format from becoming part of the standard, because that decision would seriously hurt them in the ongoing de-facto war for dominance.

Nate

HTML5 video element codec debate reignited

Posted Feb 5, 2010 19:31 UTC (Fri) by Simetrical (guest, #53439) [Link]

It really is simple cause-and-effect.

1) The spec used to require Theora support. Apple said they wouldn't
support Theora, even though the spec required it at the time. Therefore,
the lack of a requirement cannot be why Apple doesn't support Theora.

2) When the requirement was removed from the spec, the reason given by the
editor was explicitly that Apple did not support Theora. Therefore, this
was the cause, unless you want to accuse Ian of lying. (Do you?)

Apple never asked for the requirement to be removed, as far as I know. They
just said they would ignore it if it wasn't, so Ian made the decision to
remove it.