Visually stunning outdoor light show celebrating 200 years of Paraguay.
It is clear that there will not be agreement to specify H.264 as the baseline codec in the HTML video standard due to its licensing requirements. Furthermore, we genuinely believe that core web technologies need to be open and community developed to enable the same great innovation that has brought the web to where it is today. These facts led us to join the efforts of the web community and invest in an open alternative, WebM.
Recent announcement from Google about betting on WebM instead of H.264 ignited a torrent of responses. Some of the opposing views are a hilarious read, but I believe Google did the right thing here. It really looks a debate between pragmatists and idealists, but I believe idealistic approach initially led by Mozilla will win here for the benefit of open web. Anne van Kesteren (of Opera) explains the rationale quite well.
Also, kudos to Google for having a conversation with community about what they're doing. I wish it was a common practice among corporations with serious web presence to be as open about what they're doing as Google is. This is how you make web crowd care about your actions.
HD video begs to be watched in full screen, but that has not historically been possible with pure HTML
YouTube's stance on Flash vs HTML5 <video>. No surprise there: Flash is still the only viable option now. But the article itself is worth reading as it provides pragmatic rationale why web standards are not there yet.
All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other “open source” codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean or guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source.
Sent from my iPad
A letter to Steve Jobs on H.264 with a reply.
A short made with digital SLR camera. The same one that was used to shoot final season of “House”.