<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Mike Shaver <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike.shaver@gmail.com">mike.shaver@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">which led me to believe that YouTube's opinion was part of the</div>
relevant-vendor positions which led to the choice to not specify a<br>
codec. If it's not relevant, then its inclusion was certainly quite<br>
confusing<br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am referring to emails sent after that point (sorry, don't have direct quotes handy) which, IIRC, said that the reason Theora was not named a baseline codec was Apple's decision not to support it, and that if people convinced Apple to support it, that decision would be changed.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It makes sense if you think about it -- whether YouTube sends videos encoded as H.264 is irrelevant to what the _baseline_ codec for <video> needs to be, it is only relevant as additional info for vendors deciding whether to support H.264.</div>
<div><br></div><div>PK</div></div>