Examining the HTML 5 Video Codec Debate 459
Ars Technica has a great breakdown of the codec debate for the HTML 5 video element. Support for the new video element seems to be split into two main camps, Ogg Theora and H.264, and the inability to find a solution has HTML 5 spec editor Ian Hickson throwing in the towel. "Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor and explained how the present impasse will influence the HTML 5 standard. Apple and Google favor H.264 while Mozilla and Opera favor Ogg Theora. Google intends to ship its browser with support for both codecs, which means that Apple is the only vendor that will not be supporting Ogg. 'After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately, on the situation regarding codecs for and in HTML5, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship,' Hickson wrote. 'I have therefore removed the two subsections in the HTML5 spec in which codecs would have been required, and have instead left the matter undefined.'"
It's a toughy (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe "implementation dependent" is the term we're after.
XiphQT Components (Score:5, Informative)
http://xiph.org/quicktime/ [xiph.org]
Adds support for Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora to QuickTime (which is used for nearly all media playback on OSX). Easy to install (but could be made easier easily - such as making into a .pkg), and makes Safari 4 work with <video> and Theora.
Also, can we please stop whining about this in relation to the HTML5 spec? HTML has never specified file formats for media/objects (<img>, <object>) and it should *not* start now.
Re:Major browser vendors (Score:4, Informative)
"Microsoft has not commented on their intent to support <video> at all."
Re:Major browser vendors (Score:3, Informative)
Right, while convenient, that doesn't strike me as a very comprehensive list of "major browser vendors".
Good point. Let me fix that: "Hickson outlined the positions of each major browser vendor that is likely to get off their ass and release something relevant to this issue within the decade". Does that about cover it?
Re:Why does it care? (Score:4, Informative)
If we go this route with video what options are left? Stick with flash? Encode everything in two different codecs and *hope* that the browsers all support one of the two? I don't know about you but I think those options suck.
Re:why does the codec have to be in the spec? (Score:3, Informative)
Because people shouldn't have to be prompted to install codecs in order to view in-browser videos.
So you include the codecs with the browser. Since you don't want to include every codec known to man, you pick one. Or several, as the case may be...
Re:It's a toughy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a toughy (Score:3, Informative)
I think Microsoft has lost the media wars, and they pretty well know it. (admittedly, just a guess) Expect their products to support H264 and AAC.
It has already been announced a while ago: Silverlight 3 will support H.264 for video, and AAC for audio [on10.net].
Argument moot, just use both (Score:4, Informative)
You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:
Video For Everybody [camendesign.com]
It works on older browsers too, falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to. You simply provide it one .mp4, and one .ogg file and it uses which is best.
Don't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible, which may then see further solution on a final standard.
I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must. I also think Apple should support ogg too, but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).
Re:Hardware Encoders (Score:5, Informative)
Hardware encoders/decoders would come pretty fast if Theora was made the HTML5 standard.
Re:Apple and Xiph (Score:5, Informative)
You misunderstand the nature of HTML5 standardization process. Unlike previous HTML iterations, which were designed by W3C committee which largely did not intersect with people who actually implemented it, HTML5 is a vendor-driven effort that had only recently came under the aegis of W3C (after the latter's XHTML 2.0 died a quick and painless death). Since it's vendor-driven, it's going to be exactly what the vendors can agree upon - no more, and no less.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Informative)
Well, with a "submarine" patent, the patent holder will typically wait until the "invention" is in common use, THEN sue for retroactive damages. Those sorts of awards can get very expensive.
Re:It's a toughy (Score:5, Informative)
It matters very little. If Microsoft and Apple fail to implement Theora, the fact that the standard calls for it will not matter (because it will not be practical as a universal fallback).
Mozilla can't license H.264 in a way that lets downstream packagers use it, so they don't want to put it in the standard either.
The previous /. story discussing the email Hickson sent out covered this stuff pretty well.
It isn't particularly hard to do things like put a flash fallback inside of a video tag, so people that want to use the standard but still have wide reach have lots of options (flash is the de facto way to play 'web' video today, so I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that this may continue).
Re:Why does it care? (Score:5, Informative)
The fear is that the "good format" in this case will be H.264, and once it will stick and become de facto standard, we'll have the same mess as with GIF all over again - since FOSS browsers won't be able to support it legally (at least in U.S.), nor free content creation/editing tools.
Re:Apple and Xiph (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that it's open source or royalty free doesn't mean there are no patent trolls ready to file a lawsuit once Apple or Microsoft use it.
It would be nice if Congress could pass a law for proposed standards to give patent trolls a 6 (or 3) month period to announce any infringement or forever hold their peace.
Not another time (Score:4, Informative)
I could swear I already saw this a few days ago here, on Slashdot. And indeed:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/02/184251/Browser-Vendors-Force-W3C-To-Scrap-HTML-5-Codecs?from=rss [slashdot.org]
Re:It's a toughy (Score:3, Informative)
Flash/Silverlight ... I can't exactly work on a web application when the internet is down
Yes, you can exactly do that. Or will, soon, if it's coded like that. Silverlight out of browser apps (and, I suppose, Adobe AIR apps) can run without network. Better yet, the coder can detect that there's no network, and keep data locally for a later sync.
There is not a single advantage that Flash or Silverlight really have if HTML, JavaScript and CSS can make application-like things in the browser?
A nicer programming model. C# may not be for everyone, but lots of people know it, like it, and prefer it over flash or JavaScript.
Easier to mix graphics and text in Silverlight than in html.
Also, easier to make pixel-precise layouts across browsers and OSs.
Flash and Silverlight aren't any faster
Javascript has gotten lots faster lately, but I think compiled C# bytecode is still faster.
Re:It's a toughy (Score:3, Informative)
I think Microsoft has lost the media wars, and they pretty well know it. (admittedly, just a guess) Expect their products to support H264 and AAC.
Microsoft products have supported H.264 and AAC for quite a while. They're in Zune, Xbox 360, MediaRoom (IPTV), and it's coming in Silverlight 3 and Windows 7.
Re:Apple and Xiph (Score:3, Informative)
It seems like Apple has something against implementing any Xiph codec... FLAC and Vorbis support in iTunes is nonexistent, and even with the QuickTime plugin, iTunes still doesn't have proper tagging support. And now refusing to add Theora support in Safari?
No need for conspiracy theories. Theora doesn't solve any problems for Apple.
Theora won't work in iPods, iPhones, or AppleTV.
And Theora is less efficient than even H.264 baseline, and so would raise their (presumably quite substantial) bandwidth costs for delivering video content.
Re:Argument moot, just use both (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There was a simple solution... (Score:3, Informative)
you forgot this one, if a sleeper patent hits h.264, DivX, VC1, or any of the codecs then in every case it will have to be dealt with. Sorry, I just don't buy the bit about only one codec, the open source one, being subject to patent issues.
LoB
Re:H.264 is a standard, OGG is not. (Score:3, Informative)
Since it is under a BSD style license it doesn't require either the GPL of the LGPL code so your whole argument disappears into a void of stupidity.
And yes they published the spec of the format and yes it is up to date. And yes it isn't a standard from whatever standards body you like this week which in practice means you don't have to pay for it.
Re:It's a toughy (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see why video will be any different once there is actually an accepted standard for it.
XviD isn't even a candidate in this, even though it has far wider support in both hardware and software than h.264. Why? "ohh, h.264 is much better". What makes you think the same won't happen with h.264 itself?
I've got no concerns over h.264 patents. The only people are those who have an agenda to push.
Wrong. Either you live outside the US, or you *should* worry about h.264 because MPEG certainly cares about you or anyone else who uses their patent without the requisite license.
Other than 'I can't just use their code without paying for it', I've yet to see any other reason not to use h264, please enlighten me, without resorting to FUD (i.e. copyright/patent bullshit).
Per-user licensing schemes are incompatible with most Free Software licenses. If you want to know more, ask a lawyer, I'm not one. Opera could, of course, pay for them but they oppose it on philosophical grounds since that automatically raises the barrier of entry on the browser market which only benefits currently-established companies.
Re:OGG format? Who uses OGG besides FOSS zealots? (Score:3, Informative)
Not only is it license encumbered, but next year they could change the licensing so that websites hosting h264 video will be charged broadcast fees.
Re:H.264 is a standard, OGG is not. (Score:3, Informative)
Again you fail at the simplest of things. Where would one expect to find a specification for a free format? Probably under "Documentation", right? And what would you know it is in fact there: http://www.theora.org/doc/ [theora.org]. But even if there weren't that wouldn't even matter, since there is a BSD licensed reference implementation of the decoder which would do well enough as a specification.
Now as for that hardware thing -- no, Theora does not and probably will never have hardware decoding support and that is a reasonable reason for excluding it from being a requirement for the HTML5 standard. As are the bandwidth issues; Youtube is bleeding enough money already.
But what I do not get is why you suddenly get all defensive. Did Xiph.org kick your dog or what?
I am not affiliated with Xiph.org in any way what so ever. I just happen to be able to read what it says on their webpage loud and clear. Something that you seem to fail at.
Re:Major browser vendors (Score:3, Informative)
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/ [mozilla.org]