●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
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
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This discussion has been archived.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 When something is obsolete or no longer needed, it gets ditched or replaced by something better.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around because someone thinks that they have the right to continue being in business even though their shit is a decade out of date.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?
byshutdown -p now ( 807394 ) writes:
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.
The idea was not to restrict the supported codecs to Theora. The idea was to mandate at least Theora support. The way HTML5 video element is specified, you can provide several streams in various formats, letting browser pick the preferable one automatically. Mandatory Theora support would simply mean that everyone could provide one of the streams in it, and know that any browser can display it out of the box. Presumably, if e.g H.264 is also provided, all browsers that support it would just pick it, so there's no quality loss.
Besides, W3C doesn't say which image file formats are allowable, why should it specify a codec?
Not specifying image formats proved to be a problem - witness how long it took PNG to be supported, in part because of that. In addition to that, HTML5 is by far the most pragmatic of all W3C specs - it's designed by people who actually make browsers, not by academics, and as such it tries to standardize as many useful (or simply already common) things as possible, to encourage interop.
It's interesting to note, however, that HTML5 spec explicitly refuses to mandate support for any image types:
"This specification does not specify which image types are to be supported." [w3.org]
I agree that if they want to mandate a specific codec for video, they should do the same to images as well. We may have a de facto standard for that today, but it needs not be a stable state of affairs.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymdwh2 ( 535323 ) writes:
Not specifying image formats proved to be a problem
Specifying formats may have its advantages, compared with not specifying formats.
But not specifying formats would still be way better than scrapping them altogether, as has happened here. Imagine if the only way to get images on a web page was for everyone to rely on a proprietary, unstable Adobe plug-in?
byshutdown -p now ( 807394 ) writes:
Imagine if the only way to get images on a web page was for everyone to rely on a proprietary, unstable Adobe plug-in?
I understand the disadvantages. Actually, there's a worse scenario - imagine if the only standard image format in HTML was GIF.
On the other hand, imagine how much it would help PNG if it would be standardized. Maybe we'd get it earlier than we did in IE...
byDavidTC ( 10147 ) writes:
Ah, seriously?
See, that's exactly what I thought they should be doing...mandate that browsers support the lowest-common denominator patent-less codec, and then have a very specific way of listing audio, video, and mux codecs so the browser could find them. (Gotta remember MUX, people always forget that 'how audio and video are contained together and interleaved' is a 'format' that must be supported. That's always a fairly easy format to support compared to video or audio, but it must be supported neverthel
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...