[whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.
vladimir at pobox.com
Wed Apr 4 00:03:31 PDT 2007
If <video> supports fallback though, that 20% is enough to bootstrap and
build support, especially as we all hope that that 20% continues to grow.
However, I do agree that the codec discussion should be tabled and that
we should get back to the spec discussion... I've been ignoring much of
the <video> discussion because it's mostly been off in the codec weeds.
I'll see if I can find some time to read over the proposals this
weekend and give some constructive comments.
David Hyatt wrote:
> I agree with this. The tag isn't worth much to the Web if it's not
> interoperable among *all* Web browsers. That includes, unfortunately,
> Internet Explorer. That is why I think trying to pick a baseline format
> in the WhatWG is premature. Until the <video> element moves to the HTML
> WG and we find out what Microsoft's opinion is on this subject, I'm not
> really sure what the point is of this codec debate. Even if the browser
> vendors of the WhatWG all agreed to support Theora tomorrow, Mozilla +
> Opera + Safari constitute only 20% of total browser market share.
> That percentage is not even remotely compelling enough for content
> authors to want to use the <video> element over proprietary alternatives
> like Flash.
> (hyatt at apple.com)
> seems On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
>> Seriously, though, I think this group is concerned that having a
>> polished <video> interface isn't worth much in terms of
>> interoperability unless there is a baseline format.
More information about the whatwg