●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bysuso ( 153703 ) * writes:
See, this is something that open source accomplishes that stupid fucking arrogant businesses will never get. When something is obsolete or no longer needed, it gets ditched or replaced by something better. Don't keep it around because someone thinks that they have the right to continue being in business even though their shit is a decade out of date. Its a hard and cold life for the developer whose project gets ditched (And sometimes I feel bad for them), but in the end, the user wins big and things evolve
byionix5891 ( 1228718 ) writes:
Since when is Java a company... Oracle (previously Sun) are behind java
and why no mention of Apple? they are the ones refusing to support ogg
bysamkass ( 174571 ) writes:
To be fair, Google is also refusing to switch YouTube to Ogg because of its lower quality per bitrate than h.264.
As was argued by the original author, you're left in a situation where if Ogg were specified in the standard, you'd have folks who followed the standard at a disadvantage in quality and/or bitrate.
Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?
byfatalGlory ( 1060870 ) writes:
I agree strongly with this. There was a long period where we could count on firefox, but not IE to render PNG files with transparency (boy, do I remember), or a large portion of the CSS spec. Didn't stop anyone from using transparent PNG files and standards-compliant CSS in their design if they wished, they just had to know that it wouldn't look good in IE (a show stopper for many). But IE e...v...e...n...t...u...a...l...l...y caught up.
I say implement the tag, give the web developers what they want. Let them host the video in multiple formats and just serve up the appropriate one based on the detected browser or the user's preference (as many sites already do anyways). Ideally history would repeat itself and all the dominant browsers will eventually be able to handle all the major formats used with the tag.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
I agree strongly with this. There was a long period where we could count on firefox, but not IE to render PNG files with transparency (boy, do I remember), or a large portion of the CSS spec. Didn't stop anyone from using transparent PNG files and standards-compliant CSS in their design if they wished, they just had to know that it wouldn't look good in IE (a show stopper for many). But IE e...v...e...n...t...u...a...l...l...y caught up.
It certainly did stop it. Sending GIF (which looked awful) to IE and PNG to other browsers was a pain in the proverbial.
Still when did IE catch up? IE8 still is not consistent in it's handling of gamma for PNG files, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/662616/background-colour-of-a-png-in-ie8 [stackoverflow.com] . Still some are having to do extra work to satisfy IE (I use PNG crush which removes gAMA chunks so it wasn't affecting me). They're nearly there with PNG only 13 years after the spec was finalised.
So will we have to d
byfatalGlory ( 1060870 ) writes:
Fair enough, I hadn't done the testing personally on IE8 for png, I was just under the impression it was fixed.
I remember doing the testing for CSS layouts (deprecating ) when IE7 came out and being SORELY disappointed that it was left unaddressed. Guess the situation is even worse than I thought.
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
It' not intractable in IE8, it's just quite obscure so people started seeing there PNG background looking the wrong brightness (gamma) in IE8 and it was pretty well hidden as to why. MS may not have technically done things wrong, just inconsistently with how they rendered hex colours and how the other browsers do it (ignore gAMA tags).
I'd take IE8 over any previous IE browser any day.
bySiChemist ( 575005 ) * writes:
IE will expect you to use Silverlight for all your video needs, so you don't need to worry about native browser decoding. Isn't that nice of them?
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...