Ogg formats in HTML5: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:59, 10 October 2017

Revision as of 08:42, 27 January 2018

Line 1:

{{HTML}}{{Bias}}

The [[HTML5]] draft specification adds <code>video</code> and <code>audio</code> [[HTML element|elements]] for '''embedding video and audio in HTML documents'''. The specification had formerly recommended support for playback of '''[[Theora]] video and [[Vorbis]] audio encapsulated in [[Ogg]] [[Container format (digital)|containers]]''' to provide for easier distribution of audio and video over the internet by using [[open standard]]s, but the recommendation was soon after dropped.

==Motivation==

{{Section OR|date=January 2012}}

Because some visitors and publishers choose not to take part in the use of [[proprietary software]], web content has been made available through [[Free software|freely implementable]] [[open standard]]s in order to reach these users. As multimedia is already mainstream on the web through proprietary data formats (such as [[Windows Media Video]] and [[MPEG-4 Part 14|MP4]]) and browser [[Plug-in (computing)|plugin]]s (such as [[Adobe Flash Player]]), developers{{Who|date=January 2018}} had hoped Theora and Vorbis would become part of the HTML5 specification.<ref>{{cite web

| title = Ogg Theora, H.264 and the HTML 5 Browser Squabble | date = 6 July 2009

| author = RoughlyDrafted Magazine | publisher = RoughlyDrafted Magazine

Line 72 ⟶ 71:

|url = http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf

|accessdate = 2008-02-25

}}</ref> states that "a W3C-led standardization of a 'free' codec, or the active endorsement of proprietary technology such as Ogg [...] by W3C, is, in our opinion, not helpful". [[Xiph.org]]'s codecs, while licensed under a [[BSD licenses#BSD-style licenses|BSD-style]] [[permissive free software license]], implement a standard controlled by Xiph.org themselves, rather than a multi-vendor community such as MPEG

. [[Apple Inc.]], a member of the [[MPEG LA]], has also opposed the inclusion of Ogg formats in the HTML standard on the grounds that [[H.264]] performs better and is already more widely supported, citing patents on their codec's efficiency and the lack of precedents of "Placing requirements on format support", even at the "SHOULD" level, in HTML specifications.<ref name="apple-ogg">{{ cite mailing list

|url=http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html

|title=&#91;whatwg&#93; Codecs (was Re: Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements)