Robert J Crisler
rcrisler1 at unl.edu
Mon Mar 31 20:58:16 PDT 2008
I'm not saying that the MPEG codecs meet the 188.8.131.52 requirements. I'm
saying that ISO/IEC MPEG standards are vastly preferable to the nonstandard,
single-company junk that web developers are saddled with now. The W3C need
not abandon its ideals to declare that MPEG standards are better than the
status quo of MS, Adobe and Real "standards." From my perspective, and for
what it's worth, I doubt that the ideals of the W3C as expressed in
184.108.40.206would result in a situation that would be superior to simply
international standards body for audio and video codecs deal with these
technological areas. IF 220.127.116.11 were satisfied by Ogg or some other effort,
we would still at best end up with a bifurcated digital world, where the web
went with the free/open "standard," while every other digital representation
of video and audio was encoded in the MPEG set of standards. I just think
idealism shouldn't have to trump pragmatism in this instance.
Who wins and who loses? Web and new media developers win by having a
streamlined workflow and one expectation for video and audio standards
support in browsers. Users win by not having to worry about whether or not
they have the right plug-in for Site A or Site B. The W3C wins by having a
video tag that's reliable and complete, and not just a sort-of-better EMBED.
The issue of a small licensing fee didn't stop MPEG 1 Part 3 from becoming
the ubiquitous world standard for audio. It isn't going to stop MPEG-4 AAC
from supplanting it, and it hasn't stopped MPEG-2 and AVC from being the
standard for HD codecs. Insisting on purity in these matters while the world
moves on strikes me as just a bit quixotic.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv at mozilla.org> wrote:
> Robert J Crisler wrote:
> > The text under 18.104.22.168 could have been written ten years ago:
> > "It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support
> > the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the
> > current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit
> > or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source
> > development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and
> > that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies.
> > This is an ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more
> > information is available."
> > You may have a digital cable or satellite service (that's
> > MPEG-2 or MPEG-4). You may have a DVD player (MPEG-2), or a Blu-Ray
> > player (MPEG-4). You may have an iPod (MPEG-4). And you may have heard
> > of MP3.
> So you believe that these codecs meet the requirements in 22.214.171.124? Or
> are you saying that the requirements need to change? If you are saying
> they need to change, who wins and who loses from the change? And how do
> you justify that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg