Talk:Use of Ogg formats in HTML5
- 1 HTML comment left on the page
- 2 Whose idea was this?
- 3 What's so special about OGG?
- 4 Move to "Ogg formats in HTML 5"
- 5 EULA Issues of Proprietary Software
- 6 Safari browser supports HTML5 ogg video?
- 7 Remove "External links" section
- 8 Motivation has virtually no references
- 9 Ogg hosting website
- 10 Merge
HTML comment left on the page
This was left on the page, I assume the author thought that it would not show...
<!-- (it's not a MUST because some vendors may have legal reasons why they can't or won't support it, and there's no point making them non-conforming when they have no choice in the matter) -->
It was in regard to:
User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format.
- It is a citation of a diff of a change done to an HTML page. --AVRS (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Whose idea was this?
I see who opposed it, but who brought it up in the first place?
What's so special about OGG?
What other free (libre) media format has been proposed for inclusion in a W3C markup specification? PNG? SVG? TXT? RSS? WTF? None? It's not even required that useragents support or display images of any format at all - what's so special about OGG that it gets special attention from W3C? This isn't intended to be argumentative, I sincerely want to know what's behind this. It seems so contrary to the way any other peripheral media is considered in relation to Web markup language specifications and development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- The special part of ogg is that this format have no patents and everybody/every vendor can implement this format. The idea behind the video tag is that every browser should be able to handle the video without install an extra plugin - and on some os the plugins are not avaible, i.e. dos or old windows versions(and many other oses)!mabdul 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The idea is to avoid the current mess we're in regarding video on the Web. Beside Flash, you have Windows Media files, Quicktime files, Realvideo... Each requiring its own plugin/player, most of them from a specific vendor, and sometimes not easily available across OS. Ogg are the only open-source formats for multimedia files, and therefore suitable for implementation on every OS without vendor lock-in. But of course, Apple doesn't want people to move away from their proprietary Quicktime player which is currently installed on a majority of computer. Even if Quicktime is probably better than Theora in term of image quality, if it wasn't needed anymore for most video, their installed base would drop (remember, they tried to push Safari on Windows by including it by default in the Quicktime updater). Ksempac (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- PNG is a free (libre) media format, but only because the big boys couldn't ignore it anymore. Nice to see the big boys having to adapt themselves instead of the other way around. There could be others that are free (libre) but I know that png is anyway. --Thelennonorth (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Move to "Ogg formats in HTML 5"
This page started out as a section of the page about HTML 5, describing a historic event entitled the "Ogg controversy". It has not changed much since the split, therefore it still would fit better into a bigger context like that of the first sentence, namely the role of Ogg formats in HTML 5. A slightly wider context like "Ogg formats in HTML 5" would make it appropriate to also include some updated information, for example about the format war of the web which Ogg formats are supposed to become part of, as well as the bigger historic picture of Ogg formats in HTML 5, like the motivation for it. I will start elaborating this a little.
- I'd like to keep it as a separate article. It is in a bigger context as described and linked in the article. -- Henriok (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
EULA Issues of Proprietary Software
One other key issue that some people fail to take into consideration are the EULA requirements one must agree in order to use a particular player. If a company that produces any of these media players or media player browser plugins wants to make money from selling peoples personal information, installing any manner of methods of spying on peoples files, communications, etc., and includes the right for them to do so in their vague or explicit EULA license that you MUST agree in order to view their proprietary media format, then what option does the user have but to be denied access to the media they wish to see in order to protect their privacy?! THIS IS THE MAJOR ISSUE WITH THE OGG FORMAT! It is completely FREE from these restrictions! How will the robber barrons profit when everyone is using NON-proprietary media? It appears that Wikipedia is based upon a Socialism type of concept. IMHO, I think that the Web and the Internet standards in general should be also. Using proprietary formats doesn't live up to the standard of a free, non-propietary Internet. I included the actual full reference in my edit in order to quell the misconception that the OGG standard was REQUIRED when it was merely SUGGESTED. NOTE: if you wish to see a really good example of how good proprietary formats are at restricting the flow of information, simply load up a standard Debian Linux and use Iceweasel to web browse. Then, visit some pages such as YouTube, MSNBC, etc., and then navigate to their media sections. You will notice that very little, if any, of their media will be viewable in your browser. Lots of people do not know how to install software and browser plugins. Having a universally accepted media player, even if it is not the highest standard, is much better than being denied access to media for lack of an acceptable media player or EULA. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- While discussion of changes you make to articles are welcome, please see WP:Soapbox and WP:Talk pages. Talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article. Your ideas on the evils of robber barons or EULAs or whatever are not appropriate for talk pages Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Safari browser supports HTML5 ogg video?
I think Safari 4 supports the HTML5 video tag, to play ogg video, am I correct? I did not get very good sources, but I got this. I am planning to add this info, anyone got anything to say? --SF007 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, not natively. It requires the Xiph Quicktime plugin. Probably still worth mentioning. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Motivation has virtually no references
The section entitled "Motivation" reads as original research (or opinion) and offers only one reference, that being to a demo of the Ogg format being referenced in a <video> element. I submit it really needs help or removal. Alphaman (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Ogg hosting website
With only Dailymotion listed, the list seems to forget about a few sites: such as, the internet archive. example:  When it's opened in Firefox (version 3.6), I get the following text under the preview and embed this:
Your browser supports the new <video> tag! Would you like to try the new <video> tag?
There must be other sites as well experimenting with the video tag?
Most will work with a fall back of course but anyway, support is support.
Or should we have a special section where it says: sites experimenting with HTML5 video tag?
--Thelennonorth (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The format war of HTML5 is a heated debate. No surprise the neutrality of this article is disputed when it is only about Ogg formats. I think we should merge this article and "HTML5 video" into "HTML5 multimedia" (a discussion of video without audio would be incomplete anyway, so call it multimedia and cover audio too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)