[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

Geoffrey Sneddon foolistbar at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 11 12:55:10 PST 2007

On 11 Dec 2007, at 20:12, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:

>> It was intended as meaning "recognized" in the sense of browsers
>> recognising them. No currently shipping browser recognises either Ogg
>> Vorbis or FLAC.
> If I use EMBED on Konqueror pointing to an Ogg Vorbis file, I get a  
> nice
> player with streaming and everything.  Konqueror's shipping, isn't it?
> There is at least *one* browser that already supports, through  
> GStreamer, Ogg
> in <video> tags.  I'd give you the link but it apparently fell off  
> the end of
> Planet GNOME so I can't find it...  Now hold on, it's not shipping,  
> but that
> doesn't mean it won't be shipping tomorrow.
> What you actually wanted to say (but couldn't/didn't/were unwilling  
> to) is:
> "No currently shipping browser by any of the major proprietary  
> software
> vendors support Ogg Vorbis or FLAC".

Nor any of the minor ones, nor most open source ones.

Also, I assume through Konqueror relying on GStreamer that Konqueror  
doesn't support it itself (or through a required dependancy, which is  
needed to actually conform to such a clause that existed). WebKit  
trunk also supports Ogg in <video> if you have the needed QT component  
(which is supporting it as much as Konqueror supports it). Opera 9.5  
beta has built in support for Ogg/etc. and supports nothing else.

There are still large questions about when Fx will support (which I  
assume from your later post is what you were referring to) <video>  
natively, though it may well be in Fx 3.0 in early '08.

>>> It's just dollars.
>> Apple does not license Apple Lossless to anyone else AFAIK,
> OK.  So they sell fewer iPods because iPods don't play Ogg Vorbis  
> without
> Rockbox.  Same outcome.

Oh, look, they are already losing custom through not supporting WMA.  
It doesn't look like they particularly care about that, does it?

>> and the
>> only standards that MPEG-LA collects money for that Apple receives  
>> any
>> share of whatsoever is "MPEG-4 Systems" and IEEE 1394 (Firewire).
>> Neither of these have anything to do with audio/video codecs. Saying
>> that Apple has a financial interest in wanting MPEG codecs mandated  
>> in
>> HTML 5 is totally untrue.
> I didn't say Apple wanted MPEG codecs mandated in HTML 5, so don't  
> put words
> in my mouth or attempt to smoke-and-mirrors us with straw men.  This  
> is
> either a fumble on your part or an attempt to derail the discussion  
> into
> wreckland.

No, it is me trying to understand what you're meaning.

> I said Apple doesn't want Ogg Vorbis because they don't control the  
> tech, and
> because they would very much rather have consumers "prefer" (in the  
> sense of
> being screwed with no choice) DRM-encumbered AAC (note it's not the  
> codec,
> but the controlling of the consumer that matters here).

AAC doesn't support DRM natively. It's a proprietary extension. iTunes  
has always ripped CDs by default into non-DRM-encumbered AAC (i.e., an  
open standard, and compatible with numerous players). Apple has never,  
anywhere where it has a choice, favoured DRM-encumbered standards.

Geoffrey Sneddon

More information about the whatwg mailing list