RSSFirefox 3.1 will try native Ogg video and audio, despite W3C
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 4, 2008, 2:10 PM
Should a Web browser be capable of decoding audio and video for itself? Mozilla is seriously experimenting with the notion, despite a turn of events in the open source community that may mean its experiment won't be a standard.
For years, one of the most significant debates in the field of Web browser development concerns the issue of openness versus choice. Specifically, should a Web browser support an open standard for embedding audio and video elements by default, or should it continue to enable Web site developers to include the formats of their choice, thus compelling users to download the appropriate, corresponding plug-ins?
The debate turned a corner last December, when the World-Wide Web Consortium apparently backed down from its plan to enable default codecs for its planned <VIDEO> and <AUDIO> tags in HTML 5. Open source developers had been looking forward to support for the Ogg Vorbis audio codec from the Xiph.org Foundation -- which is presently patent-free -- and the Ogg Theora video codec, based on open source, though patented, technology from On2. That company has pledged not to use its patents to restrict that codec's use.
Setting up these tags for default settings would enable Web browsers such as Mozilla Firefox to utilize built-in codecs, as an alternative to -- or as a way to bypass the need for -- proprietary add-ons such as Apple's QuickTime, Adobe's Flash, or Microsoft's Silverlight. But in what was largely viewed as a surrender to proprietary interests, W3C amended its HTML 5 documentation late last year to indicate that browsers may still require proprietary multimedia codecs.
"This specification might have certain additional requirements on character encodings, image formats, audio formats, and video formats in the respective sections," reads one clearly marked addition by W3C's Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG).
Later came this telling addition: "It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies."
This enraged many open source developers including Manuel Amador, who fired off a heated response to the WHATWG. "This compromise on basic values is unacceptable, whatever the practical reasons you have deemed to compromise for," Amador wrote. "If you don't revert, you will be giving us independent authors the shaft. And we will remember it forever."
Now, in an early alpha release of Mozilla Firefox 3.1, some of its key developers have announced, it will go ahead and test Ogg Vorbis audio and Ogg Theora video support as defaults for the new HTML 5 elements, as though W3C had decided to implement them that way anyway.
"This original commit is a work in progress," writes developer Chris Double in a recent blog post. "There are unimplemented bits, bugs, etc that need to be sorted out. But it's a start towards using a common codec across all platforms and will improve as we get towards the 3.1 release."
And as developer Christopher Blizzard adds, "I suspect that the effects of this will take a long while to be felt but it's a great first step in bringing open video to the Web by delivering it to a couple hundred million people around the world."
The first alphas of Firefox 3.1, code-named "Shiretoko," were released by Mozilla last week.
If they're going to do it why don't they support speex as well.
Score: 0
What everyone seems to forget is that most of the innovation of the modern internet had nothing to do with the W3C and that they are always lagging behind the useful trends.
The most prominent example is AJAX, which MSFT embedded in IE5 for their Exchange Web Access tools. There was no standard for it. It changed the internet. W3 eventually caught up but no one should wait for the W3 for things that are clearly features in demand.
Even when the W3 finally gets around to things they usually turn out to be so late or so bad that they are all but unused (how often do you use SVG or SMIL or MathML or ...?).
I applaud the FireFox team for taking the initiative and pushing the browsing experience forward for everyone.
Innovation is key. You can flame MS all you want, but without them breaking the rules there is no XMLHTTP and without XMLHTTP there is no AJAX. Sure, it might have come eventually (after 6 years of idiots wrangling over standards) but you would still be using hidden IFRAMEs for everything and begrudging how stupid DHTML is.
My suggestion: Break all the rules. Just try to do it in a open, scalable and comprehensive way and be prepared to clean up after yourself once the final standards come along.
I didn't see any of you moaning about Pre-N or Draft-N routers.
Score: 0
I didn't see any of you moaning about Pre-N or Draft-N routers
Apparently you just weren't here... Plenty of us "moaned" about selling ghear that could very likely have proven to incompatible with the final standard (56K/V.90 anyone?)
Score: 0
Firefox's developers thing Fifefox browser are cool, #1, kickass... and can control the www world! Such a bad attitude.
Score: 0
...
I'm not convinced you actually read the article at all.
Score: 0
Please learn English first, and THEN review titles in English. I mean good lord..:|
Score: 0
I'm not convinced he actually read his English book.
Score: 0
You need a blowjob. Seriously.
Score: 0
Well, we (consumers) will not see any benefit from these... approaches.
I.E.: Google docs will never be as good as NATIVE software (name it M$ office, Open Office, or whatever you want to call it).
Connect to internet as requisite to use (load) any software (or data) will NEVER be as good or faster than load it from your computer, at your will.
Will be easier for software companies to track you or impose their conditions if they have your data, but it is unfair and not good for us!
We should impose our wishes, spite of propaganda...
Score: 0
ah, i see the fall of firefox coming... so sad
Score: 0
so whats next?
Score: 0
"The debate turned a corner last December, when the World-Wide Web Consortium apparently backed down from its plan to enable default codecs for its planned [VIDEO] and [AUDIO] tags in HTML 5."
One thing it ****ing well isn't is capital letters.
Score: 0
NO.
I'm a web developer and I highly value that HTML is a subset of XML (XHTML) wherein the language is strict and is designed to be displayed on multiple mediums.
Video is not as straightforward as supporting the basic 3 image formats (JPG, PNG, GIF). Video requires a container to play it in with buttons and controls.
We have already made it VERY easy for developers to add video to their sites utilizing Flash, and Flash supports H264 and FLV - two very good formats.
Let each video codec developer be responsible for their own integration solution -- this is not the browser developer's problem and this is inviting a large amount of code bloat and additional areas for bugs.
It's absolutely ridiculous for this to be added. I would prefer that Firefox continue to add standards and that's it.
Score: 0
Yea I agree, the codecs and support for essentially third party enhancements should be left to the third party!
Just make sure that the third party's indeed conform to the high standards of Firefox...
Score: 0
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Make it a plugin, just please, for the love of all that is holy, don't bloat the browser!
Score: 0
400KB, and its a codec, where comes the term "bloat"?
Score: 0
Personally, I am glad to see this. Somebody, somewhere has to be willing to take the first steps and Mozilla is once again leading the initiative.
Even if if winds up being no more than "an experiment", at least it may help inspire future development in this direction... Look at what Mozilla's hard work with Firefox has done to get Microsoft to quit mucking about and finally start improving Internet Explorer.
Score: 0
If this keeps up (and I see Opera has already done similar things), pretty soon the browser will be the platform and OS's will be a thing of the past.
Score: 0
Name one company or person using *only a browser* for getting all they need to get done.
Thought so.
Score: 0
Not yet. But it could well be the future.
People using Google Docs for creating letters and storing them and things like that will only expand in numbers.
Score: 0
Lots of things can happen in the future.
I've used Google apps and it isn't a replacement for notepad, let alone a serious Office Application.
Score: 0
Momentum is building:
eyeos.org
mesh.com
Score: 0
wtf?
Score: 0
I agree it's not marvelous at the moment, but these things will only get better.
If you're looking for a notepad replacement online:
http://pastie.org/
Score: 0
That company has pledged not to use its patents to restrict that codec's use.
I can hear the MSFT trolls now defending this stance while only months ago blasting MSFT for the very same promise wrt OXML.
Score: 0
> blasting MSFT for the very same promise
It's not the >same< promise.
Microsoft lies, therefore Microsoft promises are not meaningful.
Score: 0
1. Microsoft have broken promises they made in the past (for example, witness various issues on interoperability documents) so people should be wary of such promises. People behind Ogg/Theora haven't done so.
2. Apparently you're even quicker than "MSFT trolls" to breach the topic.
3. Internal support for third party codecs can be always dropped without any legal problems - current version the codecs in question is distributed under non-revokable license. So, if the owners of the codecs change their mind in the future and publish a new version under new license, old version will still be available for use.
Regards,
Ruemere
Score: 0
lmao....
Every for-profit company lies, my friend, welcome to the real world.
Score: 0
It is just too early to include patent-free working video codec. Theora was here for quite some time, but still worse comparing to h.264 Schroedinger is promissing, but it is far away from production quality
Score: 0
And MP3 is inferior to Vorbis, AAC and a dozen other audio codecs, yet it is still the most used. Same applies for JPG vs PNG...
I think default support for Vorbis and Theora is a pretty decent idea, but obviously W3C funding is somewhat reliant on those proprietary app developers like Adobe, MSFT & Apple.
Score: 0
I think you mean GIF vs PNG.
And PNG isn't used because Microsoft are lazy with implementing it properly in to Internet Explorer, which is also one of the reasons OGG isn't used more (that and it has a stupid name).
I disagree that it should be implemented in the browser as that is giving preference to one format over another. Browsers are supposed to be plugin-agnostic so that any type of software can be used without inbuilt preference over another.
Score: 0
The only way I would be for an open video standard would be if there was a tag called [ADVERTISEMENT] required where appropriate. Failure to use it on ads would result in instant lawsuits.
Score: 0
I'd like that a lot.
It would mean you could filter adverts out much easier, too.
Score: 0
first off this is a bad idea. going against teh standards commity like that sounds alot like something MS will do and if firefox does it with this you can be sure MS will go "well if they are doing it we will to" BUT with MS's own proprietary stuff. "apple likely ot follow embeding quicktime and so on.
the main reason you can not or should not have a default codec (even if it is open sourse) is the chance that after this has been standardized and allt he broswers have it in there systems, some company comes along claiming pattent infringement and then everyone gets hosed. its the sad truth of it.
Score: 0
Pfft, Firefox sucks anyway.
Score: 0
You obviously haven't tried Safari. Now that is a browser that truly blows
Score: 0
Video/audio is not really an integral part of the web. HTTP is still hyper TEXT protocol after all. So, video/audio standards for web aren't required to be a compromise, because they are not THAT important to sacrifice freedom for performance. Vorbis/Theora are enough for baseline video/audio support. Go, Mozilla!
Score: 0
Actually, that's a good point.
Make hvtp:// instead.
Score: 0
Actually that would be hmtp:// Hyper-Media Transport Protocol. All-encompassing :)
Score: 0
Opera is ahead.
http://labs.opera.com/news/2008/07/18/
Score: 0
Good for opera, just another feature they've added which will end up being neglected and left at a 30% completion status. Check out torrents, widgets, auto-completion, the wand, I can keep going if you'd like.
Score: 0
Good , keep you stance Mozilla , We are behind you.
Score: 0