●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
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All 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.
byGuspaz ( 556486 ) writes:
They could have simply specified that a browser must support ONE of the two options, h.264 or Theora. This would have at least provided a reference to websites, such that they can guarantee that they need support no more than two codecs. Without a standard, they can't necessarily guarantee that a browser will support either. A third party browser may come by and decide to implement nothing but MJPEG since it isn't specified.
I mean, there are legitimate concerns in both camps. Theora's hardware support is no
bysamkass ( 174571 ) writes:
HTML doesn't specify what image format must be supported (PNG, GIF, JPG, etc); why is video any different? If HTML had specified GIF explicitly up-front, we'd all be in trouble when UniSys became dicks about it.
Let the market decide. If h.264 succeeds despite the extra cost, it means folks found enough value to justify the cost. If DivX or VC1 come out of nowhere to take over the web we won't be left with an out-dated standard. If a sleeper patent hits Theora hard we'll be glad we didn't lock ourselves down.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byianare ( 1132971 ) writes:
That's a good point, but the bandwidth and storage requirements of images pale in comparison to video. I've had to make sites using GIF for IE6 and PNG for browsers that don't suck (to take advantage of the alpha channel). It was a PITA, but the extra storage requirements were not that big a deal. Doing the same with video would be much more of a problem, even with today's cheap storage.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byTwinkieStix ( 571736 ) writes:
I don't think that this argument holds water. In 1999, I had to choose what image format to use, and I didn't have enough space to store two copies of all of my images. Sometimes I used PNG, and sometimes I used JPEG (depending on if I needed lossy or lossless) or if I needed transparent images. And, even then, I had to use a hack to get the transparent PNGs to work properly in IE. Today's cheap storage is...
That sounds a lot like what we are proposing now with this H.264 and Theora battle. And, just l
byBenoitRen ( 998927 ) writes:
Not to mention all the libraries that web browsers would have to ship with to enable playback of all the codecs. And unlike image formats, new codecs get developed all the time.
Now, one could suggest to just use the codecs installed on the system itself. But then we go back to the old situation of having to have a ton of codecs installed and having to hunt for codecs we don't know have, which is always a pain in the behind.
bygbarules2999 ( 1440265 ) writes:
I can't say much about Windows (I just install VLC), but in Ubuntu, the codecs are just a single "ubuntu-restricted-extras" away, and for all of the video formats it plays it doesn't really take up that much room. Maybe 20 MB?
And there are only two major codecs being discussed now. Websites will flock to whatever most people have installed, so whatever IE and maybe Firefox picks will be first choice. If you force people to install an obscure codec, they don't see your content - bad for traffic.
byBitZtream ( 692029 ) writes:
I never understood this kind of stupidity. By the time you've made all the images to make it look good in IE, why the hell do you use a whole different set of images for other browsers.
I realize making HTML IE friendly is a pain in the ass, but if you go through all that effort and don't just use it for the other browsers its your own fault.
byswilver ( 617741 ) writes:
So, tomorrow (when HTML5 is released) there won't be a problem anymore then?
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
Storage is a major issue (imagine running a video site and the W3C suddenly changing tack and meaning you'll need at least twice the storage) but we mustn't forget transcoding is also a major resource drain.
byLocutus ( 9039 ) writes:
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
byTigerTime ( 626140 ) writes:
Actually the browsers support those formats natively. Images will not appear on a webpage through a browser, unless that browser supports it. PNG didn't not always display in browsers. You don't see TIFF images in a browsers because the browser doesn't support those images. Beyond the native types, you need plugins to view the rest.
They should make the video standard support both of these formats since it appears that the biggest vendors support one or the other. A limit of one format is a bit restrictive.
bypizzach ( 1011925 ) writes:
If mng or apng were put as a baseline in a w3c spec maybe some browser vendors would actually implement them. Jpeg/gif have been around and about the only thing in use for the last decade and a half. You can't tell me that the market decided that they didn't want animated dancing bananas with more than 256 colors and good alpha transparency support. We barely got png with transparency working in all the major browsers nowadays.
I do agree the the video format should by no means be restricted though.
byGuspaz ( 556486 ) writes:
A restriction and a requirement are not the same thing. Browsers could be *required* to support at least one of Theora or h.264. That doesn't prevent them from implementing both or others, it merely ensures that they support at least one.
I'd also argue that the lack of requirements might explain why we're still stuck with JPEG for lossy compression in browsers despite the numerous wavelet-based image codecs (such as JPEG2000 at the very least) being available for a decade or more.
●nt threshold.
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...