Fun Stuff > CLIKC
Google dropping h.264 support from Chrome
IrrationalPie:
I agree that Google's Web-M decision was mostly if not entirely based on self-interest and money rather than keeping the web 'open', but I agree with them and the Opera blogger in that H.264 should not have any place being a standardization for the HTML5 video tag with it's current patents. I would rather have the standardization done right; Web-M seems like it will be well supported by Google, abides by the GNU GPL (my definition of 'open'), and seems like the best of competitors against H.264.
As for the patented ad technology idea -- I'm not sure that would even be possible. In fact, that's one of the harshest criticism of HTML5 video is that it doesn't support protected content and reporting for advertisers.
Just because the HTML5 video tag will become standardized at some point, doesn't mean Flash will just die out. It still has and will be used as an alternative media player. There won't be a true monopoly.
jhocking:
Ben's explanations are very in-depth and thought out; I tend to buy arguments more when they start out from self-interest (one thing that's pretty much always true) and work outward from there, rather than starting from assuming that a corporation actually means what it said in the press release.
est:
In what is a semi-related and pretty great move the WHATWG is going to be dropping the 5 from HTML5: http://blog.whatwg.org/html-is-the-new-html5
ie: they're turning HTML into a working, or living document-based standard from their perspective. Once something it ratified it goes into the spec. No waiting for some nebulous "release" point, just do it. The W3C is still running with HTML5 though, so I guess there will probably be a bit of conflict there for a while, but I think it's a good thing, especially with the speed that most browsers are updated these days. New features could get approved and interred to the working HTML spec one month and be in a browser update a couple months after that. Sounds like a step toward a more progressive html spec.
est:
and I know that to a certain degree there is support for supposed HTML5 features already, and that browser devs don't necessarily wait, etc etc. This is still a fundamental change in mindset, and one I think will do some good.
jwhouk:
Okay, from a layman's not-entirely-techy viewpoint, is this whole non-support issue the reason why some websites, like QC and this forum, occasionally look funny when you first load them in Chrome?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version