5 ms·

I see these two links submitted yesterday (the 2nd very briefly on front page) but no discussion: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec/current/msg

I see these two links submitted yesterday (the 2nd very briefly on front page) but no discussion: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec/current/msg00235.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec/current/ms... http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netvc-0.pdf http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/92/slides/slides-92-netvc-0.... Realistic that there could be an industry consensus next generation video codec (like Opus for audio) with Daala as basis?

shmerl 12y ago
I hope it will work out. It worked for Opus for WebRTC as a mandatory codec, though I'm not sure if Opus was proposed as mandatory for the audio tag (I think it should). Xiph used preemptive approach and refuted all accusatoins and patent attacks on Opus as soon as they surfaced, which helped its acceptance in IETF. They plan the same tactic for Daala which hopefully would kill all the FUD. That's in contrast with VPx where Google waited for lawsuits instead of defending it right away and refuting any false accusations. However IETF acceptance doesn't mean that the likes of Apple will actually start using it. But making it mandatory for the video tag would be a big victory, since those who refuse to support it will be under pressure to follow the standard.
- derf_ 12y ago
  > I'm not sure if Opus was proposed as mandatory for the audio tag (I think it should). https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18932 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18932 It was CLOSED WONTFIX.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > Status: Rejected Change Description: No spec change. Rationale: See Ian and Adrian's rationale in comment 2 and comment 3. > #2: Working groups can't force a browser to implement something. Are all the browser vendors willing to implement it? That's what matters. > #3 Microsoft doesn't believe HTML5 needs to specify a mandatory to implement codec. The market is quite capable of ensuring that popular formats are supported on the web. Opus did not exist when ISSUE-7 was closed. Who knows what formats might be more popular than this by the time HTML5 gets to Recommendation, or after that. It's also not clear that there will be widespread adoption of Opus for the purposes that <audio> is currently used. This does not mean Microsoft is for or against supporting Opus with <audio>, just that the spec doesn't need to say anything on this. Rationale is invalid, since in other instances standard is enforcing something (same WebRTC). And of course MS was brought as the main antagonist. Some apparently just hate when the Web has interoperability.
    - derf_ 12y ago
      Well, there are other ways to tell them that this interoperability is important: https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-platform/suggestions/6513488-ogg-vorbis-and-opus-audio-formats-support-firefox https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-... (no registration required to vote).
      - shmerl 12y ago
        Thanks for the link!
- ZeroGravitas 12y ago
  Opus is brilliant, both technically and strategically, but its worth noting that despite technical superiority, there's still not a word out of Apple on the subject, Microsoft (despite co-developing it via their Skype purchase) have dragged their heels on this for a long time and still seem reluctant to use it for non-WebRTC audio, and the various groups surrounding ITU/MPEG are still pushing their royalty bearing alternatives via bundling and backroom deals between patent holders. Even if this new video codec beats the alternative on several dimensions, it'll be a struggle to get adoption for similar reason of entrenched patent owners and business interests. I can't really bring myself to blame corporations for following short term private gain, but all the nerds who ignored licencing issues in favour of short term technical superiority deserve some blame for this local minimum we're trapped in.
  - shmerl 12y ago
    > I can't really bring myself to blame corporations for following short term private gain Why not? They should be blamed for it, especially when they sabotage interoperability for such gain. This irritates me the most in these companies. > the nerds who ignored licensing issues in favour of short term technical superiority deserve some blame for this local minimum we're trapped in. That's free codecs should be ahead of the competition by a big margin. Daala is not just next generation, it's next next generation, which increases its chances to beat patent encumbered competitors and to actually gain traction. No matter what backroom deals can be proposed, if someone can save tons of money on licensing and get much higher quality, it's a no brainier to do it.

shmerl 12y ago

I hope it will work out. It worked for Opus for WebRTC as a mandatory codec, though I'm not sure if Opus was proposed as mandatory for the audio tag (I think it should). Xiph used preemptive approach and refuted all accusatoins and patent attacks on Opus as soon as they surfaced, which helped its acceptance in IETF. They plan the same tactic for Daala which hopefully would kill all the FUD. That's in contrast with VPx where Google waited for lawsuits instead of defending it right away and refuting any false accusations. However IETF acceptance doesn't mean that the likes of Apple will actually start using it. But making it mandatory for the video tag would be a big victory, since those who refuse to support it will be under pressure to follow the standard.

derf_ 12y ago
> I'm not sure if Opus was proposed as mandatory for the audio tag (I think it should). https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18932 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18932 It was CLOSED WONTFIX.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > Status: Rejected Change Description: No spec change. Rationale: See Ian and Adrian's rationale in comment 2 and comment 3. > #2: Working groups can't force a browser to implement something. Are all the browser vendors willing to implement it? That's what matters. > #3 Microsoft doesn't believe HTML5 needs to specify a mandatory to implement codec. The market is quite capable of ensuring that popular formats are supported on the web. Opus did not exist when ISSUE-7 was closed. Who knows what formats might be more popular than this by the time HTML5 gets to Recommendation, or after that. It's also not clear that there will be widespread adoption of Opus for the purposes that <audio> is currently used. This does not mean Microsoft is for or against supporting Opus with <audio>, just that the spec doesn't need to say anything on this. Rationale is invalid, since in other instances standard is enforcing something (same WebRTC). And of course MS was brought as the main antagonist. Some apparently just hate when the Web has interoperability.
  - derf_ 12y ago
    Well, there are other ways to tell them that this interoperability is important: https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-platform/suggestions/6513488-ogg-vorbis-and-opus-audio-formats-support-firefox https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-... (no registration required to vote).
    - shmerl 12y ago
      Thanks for the link!
ZeroGravitas 12y ago
Opus is brilliant, both technically and strategically, but its worth noting that despite technical superiority, there's still not a word out of Apple on the subject, Microsoft (despite co-developing it via their Skype purchase) have dragged their heels on this for a long time and still seem reluctant to use it for non-WebRTC audio, and the various groups surrounding ITU/MPEG are still pushing their royalty bearing alternatives via bundling and backroom deals between patent holders. Even if this new video codec beats the alternative on several dimensions, it'll be a struggle to get adoption for similar reason of entrenched patent owners and business interests. I can't really bring myself to blame corporations for following short term private gain, but all the nerds who ignored licencing issues in favour of short term technical superiority deserve some blame for this local minimum we're trapped in.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > I can't really bring myself to blame corporations for following short term private gain Why not? They should be blamed for it, especially when they sabotage interoperability for such gain. This irritates me the most in these companies. > the nerds who ignored licensing issues in favour of short term technical superiority deserve some blame for this local minimum we're trapped in. That's free codecs should be ahead of the competition by a big margin. Daala is not just next generation, it's next next generation, which increases its chances to beat patent encumbered competitors and to actually gain traction. No matter what backroom deals can be proposed, if someone can save tons of money on licensing and get much higher quality, it's a no brainier to do it.