Love it or hate it, YouTube has become the de facto video presentation portal for, well, everyone. Now comes some worried discussion about what format YouTube may support when HTML 5 and its

The controversy rages not around YouTube's support for HTML 5 in the abstract, but the specific codecs being used. Which codecs will be required is still in flux, but it looks like two major contenders are out in front: Ogg Theora (free and open. most likely to be mandatory), and H.264 (widely-used, but patent-encumbered and requires some licensing fees).

Google's own Chrome browser supports both. Except that Google appears to be only testing the use of H.264 for YouTube, and not Theora, in this context.

Why? Possibly because H.264, like it or not, is right now that much more widely used as a codec on the web in the first place. Theora's been shown to be at least as good if not better in some ways, but the fact remains that H.264 is that much more broadly adopted -- and it makes sense to start testing with what people are actually using. Google did the same thing with Chrome itself: the first releases of the browser were all for Windows, because they could be guaranteed that much more (and broader) feedback about the browser that way.

There's plenty of good reasons to include Theora. Even if H.264's current licensing terms are quite liberal (it amounts to pennies, not dollars, in many instances), it's still a source of worry to those who want to do more than simply implement the codec. I also suspect a great many people who would be leaping to use the

But right now, it's H.264 that has the biggest potential audience, patents or not. And that's where the most effective work can be done first.

InformationWeek Analytics has published an independent analysis of the current state of open source adoption. Download the report here (registration required).

Follow me and the rest of InformationWeek on Twitter.