[whatwg] Video proposals
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Sat Mar 17 10:13:34 PDT 2007
On 16 Mar 2007, at 23:58, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach Robert Brodrecht:
>>> I'd rather make <video> and <audio> optional so that those who
>>> support these Ogg on these elements (for whatever reason) can still
>>> comply with the spec. They can also support proprietary codecs
>> Do you mean make the elements themselves optional to support?
> Yes. If a vendor, for some reason, is unable to support the Ogg
> codecs, I think it's better that they (a) do not support <video>, than
> (b) they support <video> with proprietary codecs only.
> Interoperability has more value than conformace.
I think forcing browsers to support a codec when it is outdated is
wrong. I don't want WA 1.0 to end up like RSS 2.0, having multiple
versions incompatible with one another (in WA1.0's case different
versions requiring different codecs).
- Geoffrey Sneddon
More information about the whatwg