4 ms·

I'm not worried about that at all. Rejecting web-standards that others like Firefox and Chrome are implementing is surely a path to destruction and I don't thin

I'm not worried about that at all. Rejecting web-standards that others like Firefox and Chrome are implementing is surely a path to destruction and I don't think SJ is that crazy.

rimantas 17y ago
Nitpick, but video codec is not a web standard. There was a big discussion whether HTML5 should require support for some codec, and in the end it does not. Otherwise Apple's WebKit (which is the rendering engine for Chrome) is doing very well in terms of web-standards.
- jcl 17y ago
  This reminds me of a chapter from an HTML5 e-book that was recently posted: http://diveintohtml5.org/past.html http://diveintohtml5.org/past.html If there's any consistent theme to the history of web standards, it's that all the successful standards start as someone's proprietary extension that eventually becomes a de facto standard before being codified by the standards committee. Standards that start in the committee rarely gain traction.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
  Ah, true, I was a little hasty. Still I don't see how Apple could realistically refuse to support this in Safari, since presumably support for codecs is directly built into WebKit and either Apple or Google would have to fork it if they wanted to go in separate directions. That's not totally out of the question though I suppose...
  - wmf 17y ago
    Apple and Nokia refused to support Theora, and the same argument applies to VP8 since it's also from the VP family. Google would probably need to provide indemnification to change Apple's mind. Safari and Chrome both use WebKit but they use completely different code to implement <video>; Safari uses QuickTime and Chrome uses ffmpeg.
    - vetinari 17y ago
      Apple and Nokia refused to support Theora, because they have vested interest in H.264 - they both are on the licensors side. Why would they support free codec, when they get cut from every license fee paid for the encumbered one? The argument used by both of them is just convenient excuse. What do you expect of them? To tell you what is in the above paragraph?
- jerf 17y ago
  "There was a big discussion whether HTML5 should require support for some codec, and in the end it does not." This could cause them to reconsider that decision. In fact I'd go so far as to say this should cause them to reconsider their decision. Perhaps they'll come to the same one in the end, but this is a radical landscape change and it is appropriate for the standards committee to react to that and not just passively say "Oh well, the standard is written in stone, so sad."

I'm not worried about that at all. Rejecting web-standards that others like Firefox and Chrome are implementing is surely a path to destruction and I don't think SJ is that crazy.

rimantas 17y ago

Nitpick, but video codec is not a web standard. There was a big discussion whether HTML5 should require support for some codec, and in the end it does not. Otherwise Apple's WebKit (which is the rendering engine for Chrome) is doing very well in terms of web-standards.

jcl 17y ago
This reminds me of a chapter from an HTML5 e-book that was recently posted: http://diveintohtml5.org/past.html http://diveintohtml5.org/past.html If there's any consistent theme to the history of web standards, it's that all the successful standards start as someone's proprietary extension that eventually becomes a de facto standard before being codified by the standards committee. Standards that start in the committee rarely gain traction.
stanleydrew 17y ago
Ah, true, I was a little hasty. Still I don't see how Apple could realistically refuse to support this in Safari, since presumably support for codecs is directly built into WebKit and either Apple or Google would have to fork it if they wanted to go in separate directions. That's not totally out of the question though I suppose...
- wmf 17y ago
  Apple and Nokia refused to support Theora, and the same argument applies to VP8 since it's also from the VP family. Google would probably need to provide indemnification to change Apple's mind. Safari and Chrome both use WebKit but they use completely different code to implement <video>; Safari uses QuickTime and Chrome uses ffmpeg.
  - vetinari 17y ago
    Apple and Nokia refused to support Theora, because they have vested interest in H.264 - they both are on the licensors side. Why would they support free codec, when they get cut from every license fee paid for the encumbered one? The argument used by both of them is just convenient excuse. What do you expect of them? To tell you what is in the above paragraph?
jerf 17y ago
"There was a big discussion whether HTML5 should require support for some codec, and in the end it does not." This could cause them to reconsider that decision. In fact I'd go so far as to say this should cause them to reconsider their decision. Perhaps they'll come to the same one in the end, but this is a radical landscape change and it is appropriate for the standards committee to react to that and not just passively say "Oh well, the standard is written in stone, so sad."