Re: [playogg-discuss] Re: [Advocate Play Ogg] Ask YouTube for Ogg support!

[Marghanita da Cruz]

Amy Wilson wrote:
> > > Notably absent is any mention of Ogg. Google
> > > leaving Ogg out of the picture here makes sense, because it would be
> > > very easy for them to offer HTML5/h264 videos that play in Chrome and
> > > Safari, while still excluding free formats and users of free browsers
> > > like Firefox and Icecat.
>
> I'm assuming Gnash support would be just as exclusionary? I'm a Chrome
> user (it's a hardware thing -- my desktop is too slow to deal with
> Firefox and its memory bugs), and by default it's using Gnash for
> YouTube playback.  I'm sure that Google could enforce ogg video and
> audio whilst still using the flash interface, fulling supporting Gnash.
>
> The Adobe Flash users wouldn't even know! \o/
<snip>

I spent some time on the HTML5 public 
list - mainly to advocate the inclusion 
of Ogg in the specification. This would 
have meant that to be compliant, 
browsers would need to support Ogg (out 
of the box). This would mean 
Ogg/Theora/Vorbis could end up like JPG 
a standard.

However, there was some FUDD around the 
Theora decoder license and it was deemed 
too risky. So, now no video format is 
specified. H.264 and Ogg are both optional.

However, H.264 is closed source and Ogg 
Theora is open source - as I understand 
it both H.264 would be problematic for 
Firefox (so you would need a plugin 
either free or paid for) and Ogg Theora 
is problematic for closed source Safari, 
IE etc.
Chrome is interesting as it is server 
side - but I also it is closed source. 
Flash is ofcourse free closed source 
software.

Please correct me if I have this wrong - 
particularly the closed/open source issue.

Marghanita
PS I haven't had overly positive 
feedback on Ogg theora plugin working in 
firefox or IE on Windows.
--
Marghanita da Cruz
http://ramin.com.au
Tel: 0414-869202