The web design and development community that lives on the bleeding edge of trends and developments in the world of web related matters is abuzz with excitement over the relatively new HTML5/XHTML5 markup specification. With browsers now being released that are capable of rendering pages written to meet the HTML5 specification (e.g. Firefox 3.5), designers and developers are, for the most part, tickled pink by the flexibility and prospects afforded them by this new markup specification.
The <canvas> and <video> elements in particular are a source of much excitement. The <canvas> element allows for dynamic, scriptable rendering of bitmap images. In essence, what this means is that we can now dynamically generate interactive, javascript controlled images *WITHIN* the browser itself. No need to rely on server side coding, the browser does it all for us. The possible applications of this are numerous, from games to interactive charts. The <video> element, which is the center of this very heated, very ridiculous debate, allows for direct embedding of video in a webpage through a more or less standardised interface.
The so called ‘issue’ stems from a tug of war of sorts between major industry players over which video codec should be used as the HTML5 standard. Mozilla and Opera want Ogg Theora to be the standard cited in the HTML5 specification and Apple, Nokia and Google want H.264 to be the codec of choice. Those for Ogg Theora argue that the Theora codec is open source whereas H.264 is a proprietary codec. They argue that the use of the open source Theora codec will provide for a more community driven web with various developers working on the Theora project to improve the format. Making H.264 the standard will essentially hand control of video on the web over to the makers of H.264 leaving end users and browsers at their mercy. Another issue that I believe Mozilla and Opera have with H.264 is the licensing fees. To large corporations such as Microsoft and Apple licensing fees for components of their software are trivial. For smaller companies such as Mozilla and Opera that generally distribute their software free, licensing fees are not so trivial. Those for H.264 argue that H.264 is a higher quality format and will serve to conserve on bandwidth for end users as stream compression is much more efficient for the H.264 format.
Now these corporations are having this grand back and forth under the false pretense of acting in the best interests of end users when really, all they are concerned with is their own benefit. The larger corporations want H.264 so they can essentially kill off the smaller companies and the smaller companies want Theora so they can stay in the game. In reality this grand stalemate has a simple solution: forget the idea of establishing a standard. Think about it. Why exactly do we need a standard video codec on the web? The answer is we don’t. We never did. Is there a standard image format? Last time I checked there wasn’t. I use GIF’s, PNG’s and JPEG’s based on what I need i.e. I decide which image format I need to use to accomplish a specific task based on the their strengths and weaknesses. Why can’t it be the same video? Why should we close our minds to the higher quality and compressibility of H.264 or the ever ever improving community developed Theora?
Some will argue that the establishment of standards enforce best practices but I say B.S. The key concept here is choice. What will happen if the use of both codecs is allowed? Simply this: to remain competitive each browser manufacturer will have to include native support for both codecs. This isn’t the 90’s anymore where one browser has a stranglehold on the market and can kill off a particular format as Microsoft did with QuickTime.
As developers its time we put our feet down and put an end to this nonsense. Corporations don’t run the web. We do. Collectively as a group we the web designers/developers do. At the end of the day browsers need to display the markup that *WE* write or parse the scripts *WE* write. *WE* run this. Corporations, stop slowing down progress. Let’s all collaborate for a prettier more interactive web. That my friends I guarantee you is in the best interest of *EVERYONE*. Well maybe with the exception of newspaper execs but that’s an entirely different discussion.
Short URL for this post:
http://bit.ly/BQlg9
Liked this post? Disliked it? Let people know! Share it!
J from Montana, United States on 
Stephen Orr from Walsall, United Kingdom
Corve from Saint Andrew, Jamaica
{ 1 trackback }
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Your comment map is a bit off. This post doesn’t have any comments, but the map still show two from the U.S.
Twitter: @SamuelFolkes
Actually it isn’t off at all. There’s one trackback from the US and its shown there. your comment from Norway makes two and this comment from Jamaica makes three. If you look at the map you’ll see 3 markers in those places.
It’s different with video than with images though. Video is a lot bigger and will consume more bandwidth. We also had to go through this with images a long time ago, but that’s since been resolved since most browsers support all image formats now. But having 2 or 3 different video formats to accommodate all browsers is ridiculous. I’m not saying we should have to stick to one, but all browsers should somehow be able to play the formats. Seeing as most operating systems have built-in support for decoding, I’m not sure why Mozilla can’t just tap into that. That way they don’t have to have code in there that has any legal consequences.