Ogg Vorbis / Theora Language Removed From HTML5 Spec 395
Rudd-O writes "It's official. Ogg technology has been removed from the HTML5 spec, after Ian caved in the face of pressure from Apple and Nokia. Unless massive pressure is exerted on the HTML5 spec editing process, the Web authoring world will continue to endure our modern proprietary Tower of Babel. Note that HTML5 in no way required Ogg (as denoted by the word 'should' instead of 'must' in the earlier draft). Adding this to the fact that there are widely available patent-free implementations of Ogg technology, there is really no excuse for Apple and Nokia to say that they couldn't in good faith implement HTML5 as previously formulated."
Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Who the hell is Ian? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, these companies show their true colors (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, these companies show their true colors (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's the point in having it in there then? The vendors who don't want to implement it won't, and the people wanting an open baseline won't get one. The recommendation did nothing for openness or interoperability, it just gave people an official excuse to bash vendors that won't implement it.
All other things being equal, a smaller specification that everybody can agree on is better than one with unnecessary, contentious recommendations. There was never any need for this recommendation, it just bloated the already massive specification.
Web Standards (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see that the edit makes much of a difference. Even if HTML5 says that user agents SHOULD support Ogg, it doesn't mean they all will. And even though HTML 5 doesn't mention Ogg, it doesn't mean they all won't.
As every web developer knows, what you can and cannot do on a web site has less to do with what the standards say, and more to do with what browsers decide to support. There are web standards that have been specified for years that developers still cannot use (for example, much of the CSS in the Acid2 test), and there are technologies that get widely used before being standardized (for example, XMLHttpRequest).
Re:If HTML5 gets adopted (Score:5, Insightful)
Having the web be just like TV is exactly what large companies want. The marketting tards want you to see their company website exactly the way they think it's supposed to look. They certainly don't want people filtering content or anything like that. Why do you think Flash only websites are becoming so popular? The problem is mostly due to management and marketting types having no idea how the internet works.
On the plus side, it might be a pretty good filter all by itself. The second you see a site using HTML5, you automatically know it's probably not worth browsing.
Playing devil's advocate (Score:2, Insightful)
attention that mpeg4 guy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ogg's video codec is Theora, which was proprietary. On2 developed it as its closed competition to MPEG-4's H.263 (DivX) and H.264 (AVC) codecs, alongside other competing proprietary codecs from Real and Microsoft (WMV). The winner to shake out of all that competition has been the MPEG-4 standard, which includes both a container and different sets of codecs. MPEG-4 is open and supported by lots of companies, and is also supported by FOSS (x264 is among the best implementations)." - DECS
I get the feeling that if people would actually sit down and look at the issue objectively then it would be obvious that Ogg/Theora being included in the HTML5 spec isn't that great of an idea. The problem is the Ogg crowd has a huge chip on their shoulder since no one has really given them the time of day. So, here's a chance for them to get some validation for all their hard work but they've been cut out yet again so everyone's all up in arms.
Re:If HTML5 gets adopted (Score:3, Insightful)
Patent expired techniques (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever we may want to think, it is true that someone COULD challenge Ogg Vorbis on patent grounds, valid or not. A technique 20 years old and based on expired patents is absolutely unambiguous - the patent office itself is the documentation that the technique is now unrestricted.
For most of what is done on the web the older technologies would work just fine. They are also mainstream, which means they stand a better chance of being used. The HTML standards process is not strong enough to push forward Ogg Vorbis, IMO.
Remember, this is big corporate lawyer turf here. Ogg Vorbis is thought to be free of patent claims but there is no way to prove that. Expired patents are the safest possible way to proceed.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pragmatism vs. Ideallism (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why zeal matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Every little one of these things matters, they all add up like links in a chain. There are people actively trying to destroy freedom and they are doing it slowly with incremental steps. This is just another step. I'm sorry, if you can't be bothered to take an active participation in protesting and exploring alternate systems, then you are letting everyone down. You know the expression: "No one snow flake in an avalanche feels any responsibility."
The *big* picture is democracy itself. Once the information is controlled, the people are controlled. Make no mistake, people are actively working against the free exchange of information. While most are just working for their own self interests, there are others capitalizing on these actions in more nefarious ways.
I know you think this is tin foil hat stuff, but look around, look at what's happening. We have to work against these sorts of things because rust never sleeps.
Re:An alternative... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Figures (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but how is it a loss for the public to remove any reference to specific media formats from a specification that should by its nature be format independent? Ogg had no more business being in an HTML spec than WMV, RA, or some Flash-based video player.
Re:attention that mpeg4 guy (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly desirable. With Theora there isnt that problem.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have news for you: HTML is a format!
By being half-assed and not specifying a standard for a widely used aspect of the web browsing experience, what is in effect happening is a de-facto endorsement of all of those pet proprietary formats at the expense of clarity and allowing the various companies to rape the public with a million of buggy plug-ins, each with its own flavour of the week. The very anathema of a "standard".
It does not matter if Ogg/Theora were not the most advanced and efficient of technologies as neither is the whole concept of HTML. What mattered was estabilishment of an open standard which would cut down on the chaos of inane plug-ins and made it impossible for companies like CNN to purposefully block all web browsers other then IE from accessing their video contents, as is the case now.
Re:Maybe it's just me.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Figures (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks you are being a bit myopic here. Where would we be today if the HTML spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the image tag? Can you imagine a huge mishmash of competing proprietary image standards, many of which wouldn't even render in free software browsers like Firefox? That would be a nightmare, but unfortunately, that's what's currently happening with video. Much like the image standard in HTML means that any browser can display anything in an image tag, so too must the video standard in HTML guarantee that any browser can display anything in a video tag. That's what the proposed specification is about.
The web isn't just about static text. It's about images too (and thankfully, the HTML specification handles them well). And what with the increasing prevalence of broadband connections, it's becoming more about videos each and every day. We need a standard that actually works for videos. Because what we currently have is broken. HTML is a standard; it only works when it specifies exactly which formats are to be used, and thus, what must be implemented by browsers. Ogg/Theora must stay in the HTML5 specification, or there will be no end in sight for the web's video woes.
Ogg/Theora only poor against impossible options. (Score:4, Insightful)
Theora is substantially better than any other codec which has a chance of being included. As such it's silly to say that Theora shouldn't be used because it isn't the best... thats a bit like saying "I won't drive any car but a Ferrari" when all you can afford is a used Ford Escort.
Obviously most implementations will also include a better codec than Theora, but Theora is a generally respectable codec at web streaming bitrates and it will provide a viable option for those who can't or won't pay the licensing fees for better codecs. In other words, Theora will be a reasonable baseline which is all it's supposted to be in this context.
Furthermore, the inclusion of Theora will also help keep the licensing costs down for better codecs. Everyone Wins, except companies that make money licensing codecs... and in the long run they'll probably win too, since web video that Just Works will increase the popularity of web video.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
YouTube works? Are you joking? Firefox crashes on me every time I view a YouTube video thanks to the wonderfully crappy proprietary, closed source Flash plugin for Firefox on GNU/Linux. It doesn't work at all. Using Ogg/Theora in a video tag, on the other hand, would work perfectly.
Closed source solutions like Flash aren't solutions at all. Flash isn't even a video format. It's an animated vector format that's been used as a hack to deliver raster video. It's far from the ideal solution; the only reason it was ever used is because it is relatively widespread. "Relatively." There's still a good number of us who are left out in the cold.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they don't. Try a 64-bit Linux, any distro, amongst many other examples. And no, writing entire 32-bit emulator plugins so that the stupidity which is Flash can run in them does not constitute "working" anymore than running VMWare makes Autocad work on Linux.
Bullshit. The "web-using public's" 95%+ membership is comprised of people who would upon seeing "this website needs the The Up-Your-Ass Shit-o-Matic Plugin to Enhance Your Experience" would go "Duh, I better click OK!".
Quality or needs of the public have nothing to do with any of it. Needs of the various idiots attempting to control the public via means such as Flash-only sites have everything to do with it. That is why the public is not involved in protesting Ogg, corporations are.
More bullshit. If it weren't for open standards, the only "web" browser in existence would browse Microsoft "enhanced" HTML. The de-facto, secret, proprietary, patent-encumbered standards, with players available for only a small fraction of platforms are not "sensible" in any way, shape or form.
Politics? Your entire argument can be summarized as "Everyone should use IE and commercial plugins on either Windows (or possibly, grudgingly, Mac)! Everyone who doesn't is a bitter, unpopular political loser!"
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure if you are trying to be ironic here or if you are actually serious.
No HTML specification does that. The farthest any HTML specification goes is mentioning that they are common formats.
Yes, in fact that's precisely the state of the world today. For instance, Firefox doesn't support JPEG 2000 [mozilla.org].
Not really, because all major browsers support JPEG and PNG, despite the fact that the HTML specifications haven't recommended them.
It does no such thing. For instance, it doesn't require browsers to implement JavaScript, it provides scripting language-independent hooks that can be used to support JavaScript or any other scripting language. It doesn't require browsers to implement CSS, it provides stylesheet language-independent hooks that can be used to support CSS or any other stylesheet language. It doesn't require browsers to implement JPEG or PNG, it provides image format-independent hooks that can be used to support JPEG, PNG or any other image format. And the HTML 5 specification is taking the exact same approach by not requiring Theora or Vorbis, but providing codec-independent hooks that can be used to support Theora, Vorbis or any other codec.
The choice of video and audio codecs is outside the scope of the HTML 5 specification. Attempting to more tightly couple independent formats is myopic.
Consensus will never be found (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Figures (Score:3, Insightful)
Even before mention of Ogg formats was removed, HTML5 would not have required those formats. You correctly note that current the HTML 4.01 recommendation doesn't require JPEG, PNG, etc., but you fail to note that it does specifically mention three image formats, and they are "GIF, JPEG, and PNG".
Of course, if you did mention that, it would be a lot harder to use the current recommendations treatment of images to argue that removing the mention of Ogg formats from the HTML5 draft is consistent with the way prior HTML standards have treated images.
Re:Ummmm..... (Score:3, Insightful)
No one actually knows what the patent status of any codec is. More generally, it is virtually impossible to write any computer program longer than "hello world" and be sure it doesn't infringe on someone's patent.
What we do know, though, is an attempt has been made to find patents that Vorbis infringes, and that attempt came up with nothing. Furthermore, Vorbis has been deployed and used for many years now, and no one has sued. As for Theora, it is known to use some patents (with permission), and it's been out a few years too, without those patents being contested, or On2 getting sued. Yes, a submarine could still come up, but all codecs share that risk.
That isn't to say Theora is a good codec (though Vorbis sure as hell is), but the patent argument doesn't work.
We don't, but there should be standards for multimedia, since we already have stuff like IMG and EMBED and those things just aren't going to go away. Right now, we have an absolute travesty for video embedded on web pages (nearly a worst-case scenario), where multimedia is being played by Flash plugins! The user has absolutely no control over playback software and its capabilities.
Imagine if embedded video were handled the way embedded images are, where the user agent developer could add features, remove annoyances, hand it off to the OS' data type, whatever. Oh, and imagine if user agent developers could fix security holes, instead of having to wait for Adobe. Flash must die, and multimedia standards for web-embedded content would be a great bag of nails for the accursed coffin.
Re:FUD FUD FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm a huge FOSS buff
you speak against FOSS, based on some technical deficiencies which arent even that big
may i ask which part of "freedom comes first" you dont get? with "supporters" like you, FOSS does not need enemies.
Re:mod parent up. (Score:3, Insightful)
MPEG is the name of a working group. Some of the formats they have standardised contain patented technology. It's not accurate to say "MPEG contains patents".
In Hickson explained Apple's situation quite well [whatwg.org]:
While many codecs are patent-encumbered, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is equally risky to implement them for any particular organisation.
HTML hates anthropomorphism.
Nobody is saying that the HTML 5 specification should recommend a patented codec. They are saying that it shouldn't recommend any particular codec.
No, they were always patent-encumbered, it's just that people didn't know about it until UNISYS started cracking down on infringers.
I'm sure they would, but this isn't about picking Quicktime over Ogg. You can't win this argument by saying how bad Quicktime, MPEG or anything else might be, because the alternative people are proposing is no recommendation, not a recommendation for competing formats.
Re:mod parent up. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know where this myth arose that previous versions of HTML specified "standard" image formats, but it's just not true. Read the specifications yourself.
Not specifying any particular video codec for <video> is exactly the same as how images were handled. Including a recommendation for Theora is a change from how images were handled.
Re:Not a requirement (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right -- the entire standard is optional to begin with. So why include a bunch of optional recommendations that just allow standards implementers to claim compliance with the standard while ignoring the sections of the standard that are optional and hard to implement? Think about it:
- If Apple can legitimately claim HTML5 compliance for Safari while not supporting Ogg Theora;
- If Mozilla can legitimately claim HTML5 compliance for Firefox while supporting Ogg Theora;
Then what's the point of "recommending" Ogg Theora in the standard to begin with? It's not required, so as someone writing code to be rendered in an HTML5-compliant browser, you can't assume it's supported.AND
Reading Ian's remarks, and the new paragraph in the spec, it sounds like they recognize the need for some sort of baseline standard audio/video codec in HTML5, and I agree that that's beneficial, and a net good for the standard -- but if they're not willing to say it's required, then including it as "just a recommendation" is simply a way of ensuring that the current confusion and lack of standards continues, while loudly claiming that you've addressed the problem, and I think that would be a net "bad thing" for the standard.
Re:The two commercial interests should be sued (Score:2, Insightful)
> It goes beyond "FUD" to simply label some technology as proprietary when it is not.
I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but many people (perhaps you too) assume that Ogg Theora is patent-free, so let's go over this again: Ogg Theora (specifically the Theora part) is _not_ patent-free for the bazillionth time.
> What Apple and Nokia have done is damage to the future development of the public internet through blatant lies.
Actually, what they have done is prevent a specific video codec from becoming a requirement in a markup language standard, thus maintaining free competition for all codecs and allowing them to compete on their own merits. Whatever their motives are, this seems like a good idea to me.
> I'm not sure how it would be defined legally, but fraud is a word that comes to mind.
Fraud? Unlikely. It seems you should get a clue before you post nonsense that people might believe. It seems many Ogg users are disgruntled that their pet codec won't get a free pass. Vent your frustrations on a pillow. It helps. The current HTML standard has no image or media requirements and the internet works just fine. Video codec requirements have no place in a markup language specification. It would be just as bad if Apple/Nokia successfully push their own pet codecs into the standard (which hasn't happened yet), but as it is now there is no use throwing a tissy fit over Ogg Theora being rejected where it also doesn't belong.
Re:mod parent up. (Score:2, Insightful)
'people' is a funny way of referencing several rather loud business organizations. You make it sound like 'the people have been heard on the subject' or something.
Further, you're correct that Apple and Nokia want no standard. They'd rather have the freedom to troll around in the chaos.
It's disconcerting how many people have barely hidden partisan points of view favoring commercial outfits in these discussions. It's as if shilling was an acceptable part of geek/nerd culture. However, it is not.