[html5] OGG in HTML5

ryan ryan at theryanking.com
Tue Dec 11 13:52:13 PST 2007

On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Christian Montoya wrote:

> On 12/11/07, ryan <ryan at theryanking.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Christian Montoya wrote:
>>> If even just 3 browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, supported OGG as  
>>> a de
>>> facto HTML standard, and Safari did its own thing, that would  
>>> still be
>>> a thousand times better than the crap we web developers deal with  
>>> now.
>> Even though the spec doesn't require these vendors to support OGG,
>> they can still do so.
> Yes, but if it is not required, then there is no way of telling
> whether or not that support will be permanent. Firefox 3 might support
> HTML5 and might, just because Mozilla decided to, support OGG, but
> Firefox 4 might still support HTML5 and not support OGG, just because,
> and all because you can do one without the other. We have enough
> trouble with browsers supporting specs partially, especially with IE
> and CSS; if something isn't in the spec, I am going to assume it won't
> be supported widely at all.

This is not true. If people use a feature, even if the number of  
people using it is proportionally small, vendors will not remove the  

So, you're saying it should be put in the spec so that you can assume  
it will be supported widely? This still won't cause it to be  

> Before, the notion was that a single, open, interoperable video and
> audio format were tied to HTML5, now that is not the case, and I
> really do think the scenario I described will happen at one point or
> another.

The spec still says that there should be a free/open codec, it just  
doesn't say which one.

>>> ...
>>> HTML5 was all about making something that web developers could
>>> actually use, instead of the mess that was XHTML2, but if this is  
>>> the
>>> kind of attitude the WHATWG is going to take towards the specs,
>>> pandering to the browser makers rather than helping the web
>>> developers, then HTML5 is no better than XHTML2 and has become a
>>> me-too attempt.
>> How do you propose that the WHATWG help web developers without
>> browser makers?
> By making OGG part of the spec.

But, if browser developers don't implement that part of the spec,  
then the spec hasn't done anything to help web authors. Specs aren't  
magic, they require participation for market players to be useful.

>> The WHATWG needs browser vendors to be on board in order to have
>> influence on the Web. If you remember, the WHATWG was founded by
>> Apple, Mozilla and Opera.
> Yes, but it was supposed to be a response to the slow movement of the
> W3C with XHTML2 and the lack of operability/flexibility of it. With
> this kind of attitude, however, HTML5 is just XHTML2, sooner. I know
> that's a harsh comparison, but that's how I see it.

You're glossing over a number of differences between HTML5 and  
XHTML2, like the attitudes towards backwards compatibility and the  
fact that browser vendors *don't* support XHTML2.


More information about the Help mailing list