blog.templatemonster.com — HTML5 new tag for video codec has brought up what’s about to become the new hot topic in developers’ communities - which codec will be chosen by W3C for the video playback purposes in HTML5. A lot of options, not much choice.
Mar 18, 2010 View in Crawl 4
sirjimithyMar 19, 2010
Riiight, except 15 seconds on Google pulls up tons of articles and blog posts about Flash causing freezes and crashing, and draining batteries faster. I think the internet is better off with an open standard for displaying video. We don't have a proprietary plug-in to display jpegs. Video is not a niche luxury anymore. It's ubiquitous now, and needs to be part of the HTML toolbox.
mejogidMar 19, 2010
@KibibyteBrainMost of your argument is factually incorrect. Flash with h.264 is just as efficient bandwidth-wise as any other codec, with decoding performance that is unideal but improving. However, it's available on all platforms and is generally less clunky than embedded windows media, quicktime and real players. Prior to that, VP6 was fairly reasonable for its day and was (and remains) a good compromise for computers with limited CPU power. Flash gets a lot of stick but it's what made the internet video revolution possible, and will likely do so for as long as IE6/7/8 and other older browser versions stick around.Microsoft and Apple road blocking Theora in favour of h.264 - which they already pay the most expensive license for - is *not* a good thing and is no better than IE6 f**king up internet standards. This would lead to a situation where it is financially impossible for Mozilla or Opera to support a defacto browser standard. Youtube and hulu already *are* h.264 via Flash.And then your least logical argument of all is that theora would enable HTML5 to be used by smaller organisations which is somehow bad, because it wouldn't be as high quality as h.264. You seem to completely ignore the fact that this wouldn't even be possible without theora, and that the average consumer really wouldn't care about the quality difference (<a class="user" href="http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html" rel="nofollow">http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/compa ...</a> ).
gunslinger0227Mar 19, 2010
Sorry about the name calling... I meant that more in the "joking with a buddy" kinda way. (Slaps head... remembers to insert smiley in the future.)
sirjimithyMar 19, 2010
It's cool, asswipe. This is Digg after all :)
avalontorMar 19, 2010
Haha like the patent owners would sell H.264 to Google.
nutmacMar 19, 2010
I am hoping that Firefox holding out on H.264 would persuade MPEG LA (which collects and enforces H.264 patents) to expand and exempt royalties from websites and desktop browsers permanently. Yeah I know, keep dreaming.
stradaMar 19, 2010
"yet HTML5 on youtube doesn't support fullscreen and has worse HD."Actually fullscreen is supported with the latest version of Chrome.
johnnysoftwareMay 20, 2010
Silly.The whole point of the <video> tag is to let web site creators specify as many formats as they want, and the browser also tells the web site what formats it will support. So codec will be less of an issue than ever. People just need to use the feature. Leading browsers support it. Microsoft is playing catch up again with IE.