●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
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
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This discussion has been archived.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.
byibookdb ( 1199357 ) writes:
<video codec="blah"> and let the content providers decide.
byJohn Whitley ( 6067 ) writes:
<video codec="blah"> and let the content providers decide.
You fail to grasp the concept. The browser can only decode video for formats that it has decoder software for. If the content provider sends video in XYZZY format, which no one on Earth has ever heard of before, it's worthless. More to the point, if a content provider sends H.264 (or Theora) to a browser that doesn't support it, it's also worthless. The whole point of the <video> element is to allow content providers to choose one of the always supported formats and therefore know a-priori that it
bySerious Callers Only ( 1022605 ) writes:
The whole point of the element is to allow content providers to choose one of the always supported formats and therefore know a-priori that it will work in the user's browser. A "choose one from this list" strategy, or creating a new plugin-hell for codecs doesn't accomplish this end.
I disagree - the video element explicitly allows for several source files, so the whole point is not to allow only for one codec, or to mandate several codecs which are supported by everyone. That would have been nice, but hasn't been possible. As it is the video element is now being treated more like the image one - different browsers will support different image formats, but most will support a few core ones.
The whole point of the video element is to allow pages to easily embed video files (as opposed to the messy complicated method using object elements). The video element allows for several encodings in order, so the process of choosing a codec is transparent to the user, so long as you can give them something they can play, and is painless for the provider, given that there are free options for converting to ogg.
So it's quite possible right now, in theory at least, to serve video that every browser on every device can play (h.264/ogg/flash) - here's an example [camendesign.com].
Life would be great if there was one clear unencumbered codec with no drawbacks, or at least a choice of a few (as there are for image formats), but there isn't one clear winner (ogg theora has definite disadvantages, the most important being lack of hardware support and quality issues). I think Apple should support Ogg, and see why Mozilla resist h.264 - there are strong arguments for both sides.
In the meantime the video element makes presenting video possible without a plugin with any sane browser (i.e. not IE), and is a step toward native browser support when people converge on a codec (or several) as they did with image formats.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bycorerunner ( 971136 ) writes:
I've been waiting for someone to explain this ever since the video codec wars started making the front page on a daily basis. This is the most logical and informative post I've seen yet. It also seems like the only reasonable outcome.
bymrdtr ( 1343377 ) writes:
Hey, thanks for the example
bymsclrhd ( 1211086 ) writes:
The point is that it's not really about what big companies can afford to adopt (e.g. through h.264 licensing). The point is that the format is available for everyone - including anyone who wants to post videos they created to their own website or blog and that anyone, on any device (within reason) and on any operating system (including all Linux variants, the BSDs and OpenSolaris) can view the video without doing anything special. It is also meant to make the web developer's life easier (like they can do wi
bySerious Callers Only ( 1022605 ) writes:
The point is that it's not really about what big companies can afford to adopt (e.g. through h.264 licensing). The point is that the format is available for everyone...So at the end of the day, you have the big companies dictating which formats to use (h.264), which means that the average user will not be able to publish their own content as they don't have a license for it. That, and what happens when the licensing changes?
The spec does not mandate a particular format. Theora is already widely supported (Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari with plugin), so if you wish to use that, you can do so. People are free to use whatever format they want, so the spec does not restrict them from doing that, and in fact encourages it.
Apple's actions restrict you from publishing ogg to Safari users, but that's another matter - they have their reasons. It's not just some anti-open codec crusade; they'll play anything quicktime supports, natively
byFrankieBaby1986 ( 1035596 ) writes:
Why not just un-encumber h.264? If it is so extremely valuable to the world as a whole, and so superior, then the government should just buy the damn thing and release it.
Or simply invalidate the patents behind it. Call it Eminent Domain or something. I mean, I know it would suck to lose your patents, but I'm sure whoever created it has recouped their expenses and even profited by now, since it's so damned important.
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
So it's quite possible right now, in theory at least, to serve video that every browser on every device can play (h.264/ogg/flash) - here's an example [camendesign.com].
I think you've missed the point. The point is to be able to serve one video and know that all standards compliant browsers _can_ show it. We know you can serve different video to different browsers.
As a developer I don't ever want to go back to the methods of catering for broken browsers (IE6) and working around patent encumbered media formats (GIF). It would be better to be able to use the better format (PNG vs GIF later) if the browser makers (MS) can get the implementation right.
I suspect most web design
bySerious Callers Only ( 1022605 ) writes:
I think you've missed the point. The point is to be able to serve one video and know that all standards compliant browsers _can_ show it. We know you can serve different video to different browsers.
I'm sure that's what you'd like the point to be, but it's not the point of the video tag, as defined in the spec.
I suspect most web designers and developers would prefer a system of a working (supported!) cross-browser base with possibility for progressive enhancement - eg you _can_ send Ogg Theora to all compliant browsers but sending H.264 to some and Dirac, say, to others gives better quality.
The spec supports this, but does not mandate it, as I said in my post above. Whether it happens is up to browser makers - the spec does not have a power to sanction or otherwise force them to comply, it must persuade, sometimes by introducing progress in small steps, like this video tag.
It would be better to be able to use the better format (PNG vs GIF later) if the browser makers (MS) can get the implementation right.
MS does not support video and has no plans to, so I don't know why you mention them. I'd like one video format
bypbhj ( 607776 ) writes:
Thanks for your reply.
The spec _does_ have the power to force anyone to comply who wants to be able to say that their product/webpage meets the spec.
The browser market is quite active and web use must be the top reason to use a computer. The browser makers want to be on spec. I think those writing the spec have more power than you give them credit for - perhaps they don't realise that.
If we must serve multiple formats with the video-tag how is it better than a single format with flash?
bySerious Callers Only ( 1022605 ) writes:
If we must serve multiple formats with the video-tag how is it better than a single format with flash?
It doesn't require a binary plugin, which is not available on all platforms (Linux, Mobiles), and it exposes the video files so that users can actually download them if they wish, the HTML/javascript of the page can manipulate them, etc. Also, the code is simpler, and it encourages a situation where all the vendors eventually converge on one or two popular formats.
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...