●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
Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed
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This discussion has been archived.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.
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:
Video For Everybody [camendesign.com]
It works on older browsers too, falling back on built in players or even flash if it has to. You simply provide it one .mp4, and one .ogg file and it uses which is best.
Don't let this bickering stop everyone from moving to the video tag as soon as possible, which may then see further solution on a final standard.
I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must. I also think Apple should support ogg too, but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).
twitter
facebook
bySignOfZeta ( 907092 ) writes:
That's an excellent client-side solution.
In the interest of asking, though, what about a server-side solution? One could use HTTP Accept headers and content negotiation [apache.org] in the HTTP server, if you'll excuse the slight dip in performance. For example:
(一)Browser requests /path/to/video.
(二)The browser sends the Accept header (or X-HTML5-Video-Accept header, if you want it that way), which contains video/mp4;q=0.9; video/ogg;q=0.8.
(三)The server sends /path/to/video.mp4.
Likewise:
(一)Browser requests /path/to/video.
(二)The bro
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
An interesting idea - is the thinking behind that that Safari and Chrome would send out the h.264 Accept headers, while Mozilla would send the Ogg Accept? Or was it more dynamic...
byTweenk ( 1274968 ) writes:
Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).
This is actually possible if we make two versions of Firefox: one for the entire world, which does H.264, and an US legal shithole-only version, which doesn't. The version served to the visitor of getfirefox.com would be determined by a Geo-IP query. I have no idea why Ubuntu doesn't do the same, so that all people NOT living in the US might get DVD playback out of the box.
byTheTurtlesMoves ( 1442727 ) writes:
Its not just the US. Even in the EU they grant software patents. No one has enforced or tried to enforce them yet. But its not a given you would win a court case based on a "software only" defense.
byTweenk ( 1274968 ) writes:
EPO may issue software-only patents, but they are meaningless. They interpret the EPC differently from the member states, and essentially they think that "a computer program for X" is not patentable, but "using a computer program to do X" is. Member states think that both are equally unpatentable and will refuse to enforce a software-only patent. It's not that nobody tried to enforce them: they just cannot be enforced.
I can only speak with certainty for my country (Poland) and I'm 100% sure that all softwar
byTweenk ( 1274968 ) writes:
Before somebody throws Wikipedia at me: the fact is that you have exactly zero chance of being prosecuted for using x264 in a computer program without paying a patent license fee in the EU.
byTheTurtlesMoves ( 1442727 ) writes:
Did you get legal advice on that? I did and they lawyers I paid for do not agree.
Even if you are giving away software, the best they would say is you are probably ok and even if it went to court would *probably* only get an injunction rather than a fine.
However they said they put no stock on safety from liability if your software is commercial.
byTheTurtlesMoves ( 1442727 ) writes:
but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video
Will you pony up the 5Million per year? And if the fees are hiked up next year?
Oh and what restrictions are there in the contract that you sign? Like say don't distribute this or that "patented" technology as OS software.... Very very un OS and against the GPL 3.
At the very least there is no redistribution. You would have to download the browser from Mozilla directly. It would be illegal to bundle it in the distribution, even with windows....
Patents do a lot more harm than just cost money....
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
Will you pony up the 5Million per year? And if the fees are hiked up next year?
If I were Mozilla I certainly would pay that fee out of the giant pile of money (100+ million/year) they get from having Google as the home page.
It would further increase uptake of Mozilla and is as noted required to be a serious platform...
If I were Apple I would also adopt ogg. But Mozilla stands to gain a lot more by licensing mp4 than Apple would licensing Ogg.
Opera is a trickier question since I'm sure they cannot afford i
byTheTurtlesMoves ( 1442727 ) writes:
And when the fee is increased?
I can think of a lot better uses that pay some patent fee... Put the 5 million per year into developing an unencumbered video codec perhaps...
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
And when the fee is increased?
Perhaps you missed the part where Mozilla is already earning north of 100 million/year for the google integration.
Perhaps you further did not reflect on how that amount grows as Mozilla market share increases, which it will do naturally and will be hastened by adopting inline h.264 support.
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
I tried the Video For Everybody on my recently (last night) ubuntu installed laptop. It prompted me to install the proper software (yay ubuntu) but it picked up the h.264 decoder and mpeg-4 AAC decoder. Is there anyway that I could easily get it to try ogg thera first.
If you're using Mozilla (seems likely) it seems like that would be a bug in the way that "video for everybody" code fragment works - which browser (and version) were you using? I'd be happy to send on a report to them about something working
byspeedtux ( 1307149 ) writes:
I have to say though, the hardware support aspect to me makes h.264 support a must.
Hardware de/encoders can easily support both with no significant extra cost or battery usage. If W3C adopts it, you'd see hardware supporting both long before HTML5-only pages show up.
Furthermore, having a hardware codec for video viewing of your iTunes movies doesn't prevent you from using software for the occasional short web video clip.
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
Hardware de/encoders can easily support both with no significant extra cost or battery usage.
Correct. They COULD.
Right now, they DO NOT. In ANY of millions upon millions of devices shipped. Nor can they.
You need some hardware support in place before you can start moving it to be a real standard, that's all there is to it.
That's why mp4 MUST be in any final standard.
Now I also think you MUST have an open format for the standard. Which is why you need ogg.
Therefore, you MUST have both in the standard. Th
byXylantiel ( 177496 ) writes:
but Mozilla really needs to support this de-facto standard for video (it's not just Apple using this in hardware).
The broader entity of "mozilla", as an open source entity, cannot do this due to the patent restrictions. On the other hand Apple is refusing support for ogg.
I this this is why Apple's position on this feels "wrong." While Apple is refusing to support an additional codec, Mozilla is simply stating a fact that they are forbidden, as a foundation with a commitment to open source, from "supporting" mp4.
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
The broader entity of "mozilla", as an open source entity, cannot do this due to the patent restrictions.
Chrome is open source.
On the other hand Apple is refusing support for ogg.
if we go with your definition of "cannot" Apple "cannot" support ogg because there is no hardware support, and furthermore a great deal of potential patent exposure for them (no company with as deep a pockets as Apple has has ever used Ogg). It's simply not feasible for todays mobile devices to support ogg with any degree of perf
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
isn't it an irony that firefox 3.5 crashes with the vido link you provided ?
(a) It works on my Mozilla 3.5 (on a Mac).
(b) If any input causes Mozilla to crash, how is that anything but a bug in Mozilla? A browser should not crash period, no matter what markup it is fed (it is of course allowed to look like crap).
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
You can use a single block of HTML below to provide video for everyone using the new tag:
Video For Everybody [camendesign.com]
Except video for everybody is not _a_ video for everybody it is different videos for different people. It is a lie. It's like advertising a "food that everyone likes" and serving different food to each person depending on what they like - you don't get to make one dish, you make lots of different ones, require lots of different preparation and cooking sessions, lots of different storage containers.
The implementation of the code to serve the video is not in question (in my analogy that's just the plate you s
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
Except video for everybody is not _a_ video for everybody it is different videos for different people.
But it's only two videos.
No more flv videos. No more wmv files. It's way better than the mish-mash we have now because you only have to provide two files and you really do have "video for everybody" without having to worry about what they are using, what they have installed - or even if they are on an iPhone or not!!
It frees you from having to do ANY browser detection in javascript or server side, and tha
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
[...] every single video gets transcoded to ogg. That is the goal after all, right? All video in an open format so you don't have to worry about lockdown?
I don't think that is the goal, the goal from where I'm observing is to allow people to encode video unencumbered by license restrictions, then allow that single video file to be viewed in any browser that meets the standards (again without IP shenanigans).
Why is one single format not realistic? Greedy corporations aside.
If Ogg Theora (or whatever, MPEG LA could open up H264 ;0)>, I'm not bothered about which FOSS format is used) were the format can you imagine how quickly it would get optimised? How qui
bySuperKendall ( 25149 ) writes:
I don't think that is the goal, the goal from where I'm observing is to allow people to encode video unencumbered by license restrictions
You can - there are any number of free mp4 encoders.
The real goal absolutely should be to make everyone use the open format. If that comes at the expense of having to do dual conversion for a while it is worthwhile - only then does the open format stand on equal footing to get larger improvements in the spec and things like hardware decoding support that it will never see
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
Thanks for your reply. Just one point I can't help making ...
You can - there are any number of free mp4 encoders.
I assume you mean MPEG-4 AVC, ie H.264 (MP4 is a wrapper). Some people like not to have to break the law to create standards compliant HTML pages with video; H.264 is owned by the MPEG LA group and can't be used legally without a license.
That means unless you bought your encoding software and viewing software you're probably not allowed to view the content.
●current 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...