-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 14 October 2008 19:23 : \____
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
> <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:42:41 -0400
> <%H5Jk.46930$kh2.2927@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:4G2Jk.48009$rD2.6395@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> --- "Although HTML 5 does not officially include Ogg Vorbis and Theora as
>>>>> baseline codecs for the new VIDEO and AUDIO tags, Mozilla has adopted
>>>>> them
>>>>> for its own implementation."
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be willing to wager good money that if Microsoft added non-standard
>>>>> HTML
>>>>> tags for "its own implementation" that several "advocates" would be
>>>>> screaming how it's a plot to subvert internet standards.
>>>>
>>>> And rightly so. You see, Firefox runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, and many
>>>> other UNIXen.
>>>
>>> Sounds like you're trying to make the case that the end justifies the
>>> means. Cross platform or not, it's still a non-standard HTML tag specific
>>> only to their browser.
>>
>> Huh? It's on the books, and Microsoft is in on the discussion,
>> apparently.
>>
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video
>>
>> 4.8.7.1 Video and audio codecs for video elements
>>
>> User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container
>> formats.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/12/when_will_html_5_support_soone.html
>>
>> 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
>
> "Need" is a problematic word. Codecs don't fill the belly
> or take the sewage away, heal the sick, or clothe the poor,
> after all.
>
> Nor have you established that the items below are more
> than desires, desirable though they might be (certainly
> I wouldn't mind).
>
>>
>> * 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.
>
> You forgot two things:
>
> * that works efficiently with video
> * that works efficiently with audio
>
> Ideally, the OSS solution would work *more* efficiently than
> any of the proprietary ones.
>
>>
>> There are patent issues with H.264. VC-1 is also at issue.
>> Ogg seems to be much less encumbered, except by politics.
>>
>
> True, Ogg and Theora at least are open source. I don't know
> regarding their efficiency yet, though Ogg is fairly popular
> for audio.
I've seen mixed results. Some say it's better than the proprietary ones
(measured numerically, IIRC) and some visual assessment suggested otherwise (I
saw it in OSNews... post from Eugena).
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Oracle: Linux adoption to accelerate
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkj1A6MACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4AjACeLeqrGYN3ctdB2W2fsbgc1Swm
jmsAoIeHQXMwM5GSLoP9K6QotW2N9UUy
=pBtd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
