3 ms·

> But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6. Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard. Well, neither can H.264 be a standard, it is a no

by jawee 16y ago

> But it would become another closed de facto standard, just like IE6. Huh? IE6 is a browser not a standard. Well, neither can H.264 be a standard, it is a non-free codec for video. The key was de facto.. Internet Explorer 6, at the peak of its dominance, became the standard that many web developers developed for. Even though it wasn't a standard, when it had over 90% of the market, it was often the only browser that was developed for and other browsers were locked out or suffered. Browsers like Opera spoofed as IE by default, Netscape had quirks to behave similar to IE in some respects... It's saying that everyone who wasn't on H.264 would suffer or be forced to conform, as was the case with IE6 for some time.

cletus 16y ago
> Well, neither can H.264 be a standard Let's not split hairs. Browser != data format. I can see the point you're arguing (or at least what the author is trying to argue, whether or not it's your opinion as well). But it's at best a stretch. In the IE6 "glory" days, it wasn't just a case that Websites wouldn't be made to work for other browsers (meaning they were never tested or, if they were, it was beyond scope to fix). It was worse than that. Sites would deliberately look at the user agent and simply not work if it was a non-IE browser. This still happens. I still come across sites that not only warn you they're optimized for IE and FF (ie proceed at your own "risk" when using Chrome). Some go further and simply won't work if you try and use Chrome. It's thankfully rare but it still happens. Anyway, the point here is the IE6 displayed HTML/CSS content differently than other browsers and had JS differences too. It took effort to make things cross-browser and it was (and arguably still is) a big deal. So the stretch of comparing H.264 to IE6 is twofold: 1. We're talking about the entire Web vs the narrow context of Web-based videol so it's a question of scope; and 2. Converting video from one format to another can be automated. Converting a site designed for IE6 to work on other browsers cannot. So not only aren't the problems analogous but the author is engaging in scaremongering to try and equate H.264 with the (stipulated) horrors of IE6.
- lukeschlather 16y ago
  >2. Converting video from one format to another can be automated. Converting a site designed for IE6 to work on other browsers cannot. Sure it can. You run it through IE6 and print to an image format of your choice. >1. We're talking about the entire Web vs the narrow context of Web-based videol so it's a question of scope; and Yes, and thanks to the narrower scope it's not as big a deal to convert between video formats, but there's still going to be a marked loss of quality. >So not only aren't the problems analogous but the author is engaging in scaremongering to try and equate H.264 with the (stipulated) horrors of IE6. Viewing a website designed specifically for IE6 is likely to cause similar loss of fidelity to viewing a video transcoded from VP8 to H.264, or vice versa. >Let's not split hairs. Browser != data format. The data format in question is the HTML accepted by IE6. That data format actually works fairly well with modern web browsers, much like VP8 decoders will likely be bundled with H.264 encoders once the patents run out and H.264 can properly be called an open standard.
Lazlo_Nibble 16y ago
Well, neither can H.264 be a standard, it is a non-free codec for video. The word "standard" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. (I wish standards were free -- I've always wanted my very own copy of IEC 60908.)
prumek 16y ago
> IE6 is a browser not a standard. Look up "de facto standard" please.

by jawee 16y ago

cletus 16y ago

> Well, neither can H.264 be a standard Let's not split hairs. Browser != data format. I can see the point you're arguing (or at least what the author is trying to argue, whether or not it's your opinion as well). But it's at best a stretch. In the IE6 "glory" days, it wasn't just a case that Websites wouldn't be made to work for other browsers (meaning they were never tested or, if they were, it was beyond scope to fix). It was worse than that. Sites would deliberately look at the user agent and simply not work if it was a non-IE browser. This still happens. I still come across sites that not only warn you they're optimized for IE and FF (ie proceed at your own "risk" when using Chrome). Some go further and simply won't work if you try and use Chrome. It's thankfully rare but it still happens. Anyway, the point here is the IE6 displayed HTML/CSS content differently than other browsers and had JS differences too. It took effort to make things cross-browser and it was (and arguably still is) a big deal. So the stretch of comparing H.264 to IE6 is twofold: 1. We're talking about the entire Web vs the narrow context of Web-based videol so it's a question of scope; and 2. Converting video from one format to another can be automated. Converting a site designed for IE6 to work on other browsers cannot. So not only aren't the problems analogous but the author is engaging in scaremongering to try and equate H.264 with the (stipulated) horrors of IE6.

lukeschlather 16y ago
>2. Converting video from one format to another can be automated. Converting a site designed for IE6 to work on other browsers cannot. Sure it can. You run it through IE6 and print to an image format of your choice. >1. We're talking about the entire Web vs the narrow context of Web-based videol so it's a question of scope; and Yes, and thanks to the narrower scope it's not as big a deal to convert between video formats, but there's still going to be a marked loss of quality. >So not only aren't the problems analogous but the author is engaging in scaremongering to try and equate H.264 with the (stipulated) horrors of IE6. Viewing a website designed specifically for IE6 is likely to cause similar loss of fidelity to viewing a video transcoded from VP8 to H.264, or vice versa. >Let's not split hairs. Browser != data format. The data format in question is the HTML accepted by IE6. That data format actually works fairly well with modern web browsers, much like VP8 decoders will likely be bundled with H.264 encoders once the patents run out and H.264 can properly be called an open standard.

Lazlo_Nibble 16y ago

Well, neither can H.264 be a standard, it is a non-free codec for video. The word "standard" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. (I wish standards were free -- I've always wanted my very own copy of IEC 60908.)

prumek 16y ago

> IE6 is a browser not a standard. Look up "de facto standard" please.