[whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the <video> element
singer at apple.com
Wed Jun 27 05:34:15 PDT 2007
At 22:55 +1200 27/06/07, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>On 6/27/07, Nicholas Shanks
><<mailto:contact at nickshanks.com>contact at nickshanks.com> wrote:
>On 27 Jun 2007, at 09:28, Maik Merten wrote:
>> Browsers don't rely on the OS to decode JPEG or PNG or GIF either
>In my experience that seems to be exactly what they do do-rely on the
>OS to provide image decoding (as with other AV media).
>I say this because changes that had occurred in the OS (such as
>adding JPEG-2000 support) are immediately picked up by my browsers.
>You do not know what you are talking about. Firefox does not use OS
>likely to be slower and buggier than the free decoding
>component written by the codec vendor themselves
>We use official Ogg Theora libraries.
>and detracts from the time available for implementing other browser changes.
>No-one's suggesting reimplementing codecs. We're talking about
>integrating existing codecs into the browser, and shipping them with
I'm not sure where this discussion is going. However...
clearly a browser vendor is free to include audio and video
functionality in the browser if it wishes. However, this is
generally a little more complex than image codecs, in that container
(file) formats, synchronization of media streams, and extensibility
at the format and codec level, are ideally addressed somehow. Media
frameworks tend to do these things (libavcodec, Windows Media,
In the mobile world, using resident codecs can give power-usage
advantages, in that they have sometimes been carefully optimized
(sometimes with hardware assist) by the platform developer.
Nonetheless, the browser could do this, or use a hybrid approach, or
be fixed in function for a specified environment. It's really
irrelevant to the spec. (which is what we are working on).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg