“HTML5, which updates the HTML specification to accommodate modern Web applications, has gained a lot of adherents in vendors like Microsoft, Google, and Apple,” Paul Krill reports for InfoWorld.
MacDailyNews Take: Paul, in case you missed it, there’s a new world order. Learn it. Know it. Live it: “Apple, Google, Microsoft.” It’s even alphabetical.
Krill continues, “But the specification is plain [sic] not ready yet for deployment to websites, an official with the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which oversees HTML5, stressed this week. ‘The problem we’re facing right now is there is already a lot of excitement for HTML5, but it’s a little too early to deploy it because we’re running into interoperability issues,’ including differences between video on devices, said the official, Philippe Le Hegaret, W3C interaction domain leader. He is responsible for specifications like HTML and SVG.”
“Le Hegaret acknowledged HTML5 is viewed as a ‘game changer.’ Companies now can deploy HTML5 in their applications or in intranets where a rendering engine can be controlled, said Le Hegaret,” Krill reports. “But it is a different story on the ‘open Web'” where interoperability is an issue, he added. ‘What’s happening is the industry is realizing that HTML5 is going to be real,’ said Le Hegaret.”
Krill reports, “Apple has positioned HTML5 as a replacement for Adobe’s Flash rich Internet technology. But Flash and similar technologies, such as Microsoft Silverlight, still have a place, Le Hegaret said.”
MacDailyNews Take: What’s that, grinding processors to a halt, providing malware vectors, draining batteries, being proprietary and closed, or something else equally wonderful?
Krill continues, “It will take years before all Web clients support HTML5, he said. He cited Microsoft’s IE6 browser as an example of popular client not supporting the standard. ‘IE6 is still being used on the Web today, and it is 10 years old.’ Over time, however, HTML5 will become the standard for websites, he said. ‘You will see less and less websites using Flash,’ said Le Hegaret.”
“Meanwhile, HTML5 is headed toward final approval in two to three years,” Krill reports. “HTML5 development was begun in 2004 by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group.”
MacDailyNews Take: Fast-tracked. Molasses-like legal proceedings involving blatant patent infringement move faster.
Krill continues, “Digital rights management also is not supported in HTML5, Le Hegarete said. This means some video producers will not deploy their videos in HTML5 without this type of protection, he said. HTML5 is an open standard, presenting a problem for DRM. ‘If we are going to develop a solution for DRM which is open, it would be broken by a hacker within two days,’ he said. ‘There is no point of us doing that.’ There is a possibility for DRM in HTML5 at some point, however, but it is not in the plan at the moment, said Le Hegaret.”
MacDailyNews Take: Yet another reason why Steve Jobs wants videos to use HTML5, not Flash. No DRM means convenience for customers, which means more content sales, which leads directly to more device sales; where the healthy margins are, at least for Apple.
Full article here.
His principal argument against HTML5 is handling of video (apparently) and DRM.
Video handling is likely referring to Firefox, where we have Mozilla Foundation refusing to implement rendering of video encoded in codec that isn’t open source. In other words, if you want to embed a video using HTML5 and render it on Firefox, it must use Ogg Theora (about the only open-source video codec). MPEG-4, MPEG-2, AVC, DivX or any such stuff is out of the question, since it requires license for playback, which would require Mozilla to pay millions of dollars per year. Apple, MS, Adobe and others can easily afford it. Mozilla Foundation? Not so easily.
As for DRM, it does NOT have to be closed in order to provide DRM. You can build proper encryption technology on completely open-source model, and it will be as secure (or as vulnerable) as CSS (for DVDs) or AACS (Blu-Ray). There are several open-source DRM initiatives (as counter-intuitive as it may sound).
The above two are NOT real problems. Neither is the issue of Flash and replacing it with HTML5. Real problem is the pace of adoption of the standard.
HTML5 is just still not fully specified, which makes it a moving target for browsers. Safari may claim full HTML5 compatibility, but that full is a very relative term. We simply won’t see much progress, despite the proliferation of iOS (Flash-free) devices, until HTML5 is locked down and ratified as a complete set of specifications.
Hopefully, Apple will forcefully lead the way in locking the specification down and pushing the relevant bodies towards that ratification.
@Mark
HTML4 has no video tag, so no DRM is needed in the HTML spec. it is handled by the plug-in used to display video (usually Flash or Windows Media)
@Mark
HTML4 has no video tag, so no DRM is needed in the HTML spec. it is handled by the plug-in used to display video (usually Flash or Windows Media)
As a video content producer I can tell you I am none too thrilled with the idea of having no way (at this time) to easily protect my work. I do not now nor have I ever used Flash to convert video.
While I am a proponent of giving away samples it most times leads to no further sales. Trailers are more effective. But sometimes you just have to loosen the reins a bit.
As a video content producer I can tell you I am none too thrilled with the idea of having no way (at this time) to easily protect my work. I do not now nor have I ever used Flash to convert video.
While I am a proponent of giving away samples it most times leads to no further sales. Trailers are more effective. But sometimes you just have to loosen the reins a bit.
As a side note: HTML 5 does allow red to more than one vid source file, so you CAN prep for multiple browsers if you want.
PS- I officially stopped making any effort to support IE 6 lateast year. There is only so long you can waste time on the dweebs of the world.
As a side note: HTML 5 does allow red to more than one vid source file, so you CAN prep for multiple browsers if you want.
PS- I officially stopped making any effort to support IE 6 lateast year. There is only so long you can waste time on the dweebs of the world.
I still think developers can (and should) go all out with HTML5 on sites made for iOS devices.
I still think developers can (and should) go all out with HTML5 on sites made for iOS devices.
how about this:
leave H.T.M.L. as a document standard (the way it was ment to be)
and let the user run programs written in c (or objective-c or even c# if you realy have to) I have yet to have a good experince of running web “apps” inside of my browser (that’s why I installed click to flash cause flash just makes allthis worse and I don’t want to waste bandwidth on it)
how about this:
leave H.T.M.L. as a document standard (the way it was ment to be)
and let the user run programs written in c (or objective-c or even c# if you realy have to) I have yet to have a good experince of running web “apps” inside of my browser (that’s why I installed click to flash cause flash just makes allthis worse and I don’t want to waste bandwidth on it)
@Able Archer
if you stick it up on the internet then people can download it sorry. it’s ridiculously easy to download drm’d content and even if you don’t do that, on the mac you can always just use quicktime to make a screen recording.
seriously just convert it to quicktime movie and put it in between some <embed></embed> tags
@Able Archer
if you stick it up on the internet then people can download it sorry. it’s ridiculously easy to download drm’d content and even if you don’t do that, on the mac you can always just use quicktime to make a screen recording.
seriously just convert it to quicktime movie and put it in between some <embed></embed> tags
Pedrag,
You’re mistaken, or full of s$$t. The Mozilla objection to MPEG-4 and H.264 video was wiped off the map a few weeks ago. The H.264 consortium has issued a statement weeks ago that there will be no license fees for H.264, or MPEG-4.
Secondly, “millions of dollars a year” in fees? Bull$hit. Dude. The license is free. It was free before and it’s still free. There were previously questions about very small fees way off in the future, which was Mozilla Foundation’s argument. But the MPEG group have since declared there will be no license fees, ever. Do you get it now? NO FEES.
The Mozilla objection was never based on fees anyway, in reality. It was / is because Mozilla – Firefox didn’t / don’t want Apple to succeed with Safari.
Apple is supporting H.264 because it has hardware acceleration built into its products. This will make Safari handle HTML 5 video quickly. Most hardware has this acceleration built in. So it’s not really an Apple advantage. Apple simply want better video on the web in the form of open standards.
Mozilla doesn’t want to support this for whatever reason. They want to remove hardware acceleration and force all video to play back with software-only processing, which is a step backwards for video on the web.
Pedrag,
You’re mistaken, or full of s$$t. The Mozilla objection to MPEG-4 and H.264 video was wiped off the map a few weeks ago. The H.264 consortium has issued a statement weeks ago that there will be no license fees for H.264, or MPEG-4.
Secondly, “millions of dollars a year” in fees? Bull$hit. Dude. The license is free. It was free before and it’s still free. There were previously questions about very small fees way off in the future, which was Mozilla Foundation’s argument. But the MPEG group have since declared there will be no license fees, ever. Do you get it now? NO FEES.
The Mozilla objection was never based on fees anyway, in reality. It was / is because Mozilla – Firefox didn’t / don’t want Apple to succeed with Safari.
Apple is supporting H.264 because it has hardware acceleration built into its products. This will make Safari handle HTML 5 video quickly. Most hardware has this acceleration built in. So it’s not really an Apple advantage. Apple simply want better video on the web in the form of open standards.
Mozilla doesn’t want to support this for whatever reason. They want to remove hardware acceleration and force all video to play back with software-only processing, which is a step backwards for video on the web.
So basically this guy is getting his beige underwear in a twist because old browsers don’t support HTML5 properly? Gosh, maybe people could UPGRADE their browser instead of designing for the lowest common denominator… like Dorinda in her double-wide trailer surfing the web on her WebTV.
So basically this guy is getting his beige underwear in a twist because old browsers don’t support HTML5 properly? Gosh, maybe people could UPGRADE their browser instead of designing for the lowest common denominator… like Dorinda in her double-wide trailer surfing the web on her WebTV.
“Yet another reason why Steve Jobs wants videos to use HTML5, not Flash. No DRM means convenience for customers, which means more content sales, which leads directly to more device sales; where the healthy margins are, at least for Apple.”
DRM as in streaming video without the client being able to capture the video. This is important to tv networks and studios who want ad-supported video streams of tv shows and movies. There isn’t a HTML5 solution right (based on the comments of the W3C they aren’t even looking into it) now without users being able to download the video. This is good for Apple who wants to generate sales through iTunes, but it means those without plugin support will be left out in the cold. Unless sites go with Quicktime solution, since it’s my understanding that’s the one plugin iOS devices support.
“Yet another reason why Steve Jobs wants videos to use HTML5, not Flash. No DRM means convenience for customers, which means more content sales, which leads directly to more device sales; where the healthy margins are, at least for Apple.”
DRM as in streaming video without the client being able to capture the video. This is important to tv networks and studios who want ad-supported video streams of tv shows and movies. There isn’t a HTML5 solution right (based on the comments of the W3C they aren’t even looking into it) now without users being able to download the video. This is good for Apple who wants to generate sales through iTunes, but it means those without plugin support will be left out in the cold. Unless sites go with Quicktime solution, since it’s my understanding that’s the one plugin iOS devices support.
@no: “Secondly, “millions of dollars a year” in fees? Bull$hit. Dude. The license is free. It was free before and it’s still free.”
H.264 is free for content owners (website owners hosting video), but software that uses the H.264 codec does have to pay a licensing fee. This is nothing new and hasn’t changed by the recent H.264 licensing update. So Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google all pay millions each to include H.264 in their browsers, plugins and more. Mozilla has other issues with H.264 but certainly a non-profit organization would likely want to do other things with what money they do managed to get.
@no: “Secondly, “millions of dollars a year” in fees? Bull$hit. Dude. The license is free. It was free before and it’s still free.”
H.264 is free for content owners (website owners hosting video), but software that uses the H.264 codec does have to pay a licensing fee. This is nothing new and hasn’t changed by the recent H.264 licensing update. So Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google all pay millions each to include H.264 in their browsers, plugins and more. Mozilla has other issues with H.264 but certainly a non-profit organization would likely want to do other things with what money they do managed to get.
When developing websites, I test on ie 7&8, firefox, chrome, and of course safari, with two macs an iPad and iPhone.
IE6 can suck it! And if you are still using it, well you obviously aren’t buying ANYTHING so bugger off!
When developing websites, I test on ie 7&8, firefox, chrome, and of course safari, with two macs an iPad and iPhone.
IE6 can suck it! And if you are still using it, well you obviously aren’t buying ANYTHING so bugger off!
Friends don’t let friends use I.E.!
Friends don’t let friends use I.E.!