Nokia and Apple have privately pushed to remove Ogg in HTML5. This destroyed all hope of having free (as in freedom) media embedded in HTML5 in an interoperable way.
To all who want Ogg/Theora Vorbis to be multimedia codecs for HTML5 objects, please sign the petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/lortow3/petition.html
6 comments:
Please read the old spec text, and the new spec text, and think again. Also, nothing happened "privately", and furthermore Apple were perfectly fine with having the "should" requirement in the spec.
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142&to=1143
It would seem to me that you're having difficulties interpreting the changes of the documents.
The highlighted parts have been dropped in the new spec, and that includes your "should..." portion.
"User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format" has been replaced by "...we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies..."
Read the document without the highlighted parts and you'll be reading the new spec.
Hello! I'm the editor of the HTML5 spec.
The reason we removed the Ogg requirement was that certain browsers said they wouldn't implement it, which meant that it wasn't really working as a solution for a codec that allows free (as in freedom) media to be embedded in HTML. We need a codec that everyone will be willing to implement, which is also free. We certainly still have high hopes that we can find a solution here.
Also, note that there was nothing private about the removal, and that there was actually only one request to remove the text, which was very publicly published in a position paper (by Nokia). Apple never asked for the text to be removed. The text was removed in public, the change was twittered, sent to two public mailing lists, discussed on IRC, posted to Slashdot... it was hardly private. :-)
You are very welcome to take part in the HTML5 work, we value everyone's feedback equally. If you do want to take part, you can either send feedback to one of the mailing lists (see this WHATWG blog entry for details on joining) or you can e-mail me directly: ian@hixie.ch
I don't have problems with interpreting what was removed and what was added, thank you very much.
What I said was that Apple were fine with the old spec text, i.e. the "should" requirement which is now gone (or more precisely, they didn't object to publication because of it). It was only Nokia who objected to the "should" requirement, and they objected publicly -- not privately.
Now, tell me, how does the new spec text possibly "distroy all hope of having a free (as in freedom) media embedded in HTML5 in an interoperable way"? That's the part I don't get. I mean, the spec clearly says that we need a codec that is free (as in freedom) and that can be implemented interoperably. (Having a "should" requirement doesn't magically make it happen.)
zcorpan, nowhere in my blog entry did I pick on the usage of the word, "should". If you weren't referring to the dropped paragraph, then I really wonder why you keep bringing it up.
I used "privately" as their agendas are well hidden from the public eye, with the exception of OSS people. Well, Engrish isn't my mother tongue. Perhaps you might be able to suggest a better word for me to use. :-)
>The reason we removed the
>Ogg requirement was that certain
>browsers said they wouldn't implement
>it,
They wouldn't implement it, as opposed to being unable to implement it.
>which meant that it wasn't really
>working as a solution for a codec
>that allows free (as in freedom)
>media to be embedded in HTML.
Now, let me guess. I suppose they're saying that only formats that allow DRM are "free"?
>We need a codec that everyone will
>be willing to implement, which is
>also free.
Again, it's a matter of their unwillingness to implement it, more than anything else.
>We certainly still have high
>hopes that we can find a
>solution here.
I can see it as I speak. You'll arrive at it as soon as the Nokia-Apple dictatorship ceases.
>Also, note that there was nothing
>private about the removal, and that
>there was actually only one request
>to remove the text, which was very
>publicly published in a position
>paper (by Nokia).
"Private", in the sense that they're not entirely open about their motives.
>Apple never asked for the text to
>be removed. The text was removed
>in public, the change was twittered,
>sent to two public mailing lists,
>discussed on IRC, posted to
>Slashdot... it was hardly private. :-)
But Apple influenced the removal of Ogg Vorbis and Theora from HTML5. Would I be correct to say that?
>You are very welcome to take part
>in the HTML5 work, we value
>everyone's feedback equally. If you
>do want to take part, you can
>either send feedback to one of
>the mailing lists (see this WHATWG
>blog entry for details on joining)
>or you can e-mail me directly:
>ian@hixie.ch
Thanks for the invitation, but that's all that I've got to say for now.
Post a Comment