<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 01/14/2010 04:08 PM, Michael A. Peters wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B4F87C1.1010808@mac.com" type="cite">Google
already supports it. Opera will.
<br>
</blockquote>
Google's support is flaky and not as good as it should be. Ensuring
our content is always a free format will force Google and other
implementors to give priority to them<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B4F87C1.1010808@mac.com" type="cite">I think it
will be very difficult getting either Apple or MS to support it. When
they start making excuses about possible hidden patents, even though
the code has been gone over numerous times, they really don't want to
implement them.
<br>
</blockquote>
The Java plug-in method is an okay workaround for this, but if the rest
of the browser market is going in one direction, they'll reluctantly
and feet-draggingly comply...if only after some time.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B4F87C1.1010808@mac.com" type="cite"><br>
What I do when I come across a site that won't play for me, I just go
find one that does. That's what most people do.
<br>
</blockquote>
Yes, and this is what I am trying to keep telling you - <video>
does NOT have a widespread adoption yet, so the normative behaviors
related to it are being formed now. We are the early adopters. Our
choices and the work we put into it at this stage can and will impact
it in the long run.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B4F87C1.1010808@mac.com" type="cite"><br>
It was remarked that maybe I don't "get" the web. The web is about
information exchange, sharing information, and there are plenty of
people all over the world who share their information in a wide variety
of formats.
<br>
</blockquote>
I think I was a bit harsh, especially in making that statement
personal. However, information exchange, sharing information, and
communication all require an agreed-upon standard in which to do so.
If HTML wasn't an open format, where would we be? If JPEG wasn't
freely implementable, do you think we'd even be using pictures as
much? Proprietary examples of all formats have always existed, and we
must not allow them to become the *norm*. We don't want to ban them
completely, either. But having a free format as the defacto (or even
dujure) standard sets the precedent that that is how it <i>should</i>
be. Imagine if MS (or anyone else, but they hold the most clout) came
up today with a proprietary markup language for the web? It would die
within a year (they try these kinds of things from time-to-time). It's
actually IE's backward compatible support for broken HTML and other
proprietary technologies that make it such a dinosaur in the modern
Internet age. Their attempt to strong arm the computing industry into
using MS-only technology has backfired on them and their customers that
have bought into the idea.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B4F87C1.1010808@mac.com" type="cite"><br>
The open ones that work well are best, I personally prefer Theora and
Ogg. I am strictly Linux and they work out of the box for me. But I'm
not going to limit the information I share to those using Theora
capable browsers just like I don't like web sites that limit the
information they share to users with WMV capable browsers.
<br>
</blockquote>
There is nothing but technical roadblocks to implementing Theora
support in any browser. WMV or other proprietary technologies are
*legally barred* from being implemented in an open fashion. The two
are not comparable.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B4F87C1.1010808@mac.com" type="cite"><br>
I'm sorry I brought using H.264 up on a Theora list, I agree I probably
shouldn't have done that, but for me, the web is about getting
information I want to share to those who want to receive it, not about
pushing open vs proprietary formats.<br>
</blockquote>
Firefox has a much, much broader base of support than either Chrome or
Safari. Supporting Theora gets the majority of people. Additionally,
and I repeat myself, no one is relying on this behavior. There are
options to make it work on all platforms currently, through Cortado.
So you're not cutting anyone out.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B4F87C1.1010808@mac.com" type="cite"><br>
The web site where I use multimedia deals with educating the public
about our native Reptiles and Amphibians. This is important, there is
massive amphibian decline going on and people tend not to care about
them unless they know about them. Am I going to keep my content from a
user just because they use Safari or Internet Exploder? Hell no, the
site exists for everyone to access, learn from, and hopefully a few of
them will take up an interest in our declining species, even if they
don't use patent free multimedia formats.
<br>
</blockquote>
That is indeed important, and so is almost everything else everyone
else wants to communicate. Using the <video> + applet method
will get pretty-much everyone, and you'll be sending the message that
free formats need to be implemented, or users are going to start
complaining about their browsers. Does it mean we have to make some
sacrifices up front - yes, it does. But the end is a victory for
everyone when it's been determined that large corporations will not be
able to unjustly use their power to force people to use their
technologies and lock them in, whether it's due to hardware, software,
or legal action. By explicitly not support unfree formats, this can be
achieved. Giving in at this early stage of adoption aids them.<br>
</body>
</html>