http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
HTML 5 will thus not be defining any codec in the standard.
HTML 5 will thus not be defining any codec in the standard.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HTML5 <video> tag mess
- Thread starter clevin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, sadly, it means the <video> tag is now highly likely to become a complete waste of time. The idea was that the tag would allow for embedded video using a standard, agreed-upon codec, so all compliant browsers could view the video without an add-on or plugin (e.g. no Flash needed). The Open Source community wanted the codec to be Ogg Theora, but the browser developers don't like it (particularly Apple). Apple likes H.264 but it isn't free and open.
Without a standard on the codec, it will become fairly unpredictable whether or not the video will play in one's browser -- much like the situation before Flash took over as the web video player of choice. So the net result will probably be that no one will use <video> tags, if this is the way things stay.
mozilla already implemented ogg in firefox 3.5, which is their way of establishing the facts.
wikimedia foundation is converting all their media to ogg, thats their way of establishing the facts.
Apple has safari tied with quicktime on OSX already, and probably is working on pushing H.264 to iPhone (dont be too enthusiastic, it gonna take a long time), thats their way of establishing the facts as well.
at the same time, IE will not implement the media tag at all. so the draft unlikely to be as widely accepted as flash in any fashion.
The W3C groups are filled with fractions with their own calculation and interests. Its getting more and more difficult to do anything.
wikimedia foundation is converting all their media to ogg, thats their way of establishing the facts.
Apple has safari tied with quicktime on OSX already, and probably is working on pushing H.264 to iPhone (dont be too enthusiastic, it gonna take a long time), thats their way of establishing the facts as well.
at the same time, IE will not implement the media tag at all. so the draft unlikely to be as widely accepted as flash in any fashion.
The W3C groups are filled with fractions with their own calculation and interests. Its getting more and more difficult to do anything.
I've always felt that Ogg Vorbis/Theora have terrible names which act as a barrier to public adoption...they sound stupid. I remember when my mom somehow stumbled on some ogg files, called me and said "What's an ogg vorbis? It sounds like an alien." 
I thought the iPhone already has H.264 -- my understanding was that one of the major purposes for getting Youtube to re-encode most of their video in H.264 was so that it could play on the iPhone without flash....
It is. Indeed, Apple's main objection to Ogg Vorbis/Thedora is that there's no hardware acceleration for it in mobile platforms like the iPhone, unlike H.264. There's no hardware accelerator chips for Ogg being produced at the moment either, and lots for H.264.
Phazer
I don't agree. The img tag supports multiple codecs, and even with IE's patchy support for PNG there were plenty of sites serving PNG images.
I agree it would have been beneficial to have had an agreement on a default codec, but we have 3 browser vendors shipping browsers with support for the video tag. I wouldn't be surprised to see websites serving both Theora and H.264.
I'm curious to know what MS will do. Will it ignore HTML5 completely? Or will it implement support in IE9? If it does, you can bet MS won't be implementing Ogg Theora.
Ultimately, I don't care which codec is the default, just as long as we can kill Flash and Silverlight.