[whatwg] Codecs for <audio> and <video>

Peter Kasting pkasting at google.com
Wed Jul 1 12:04:01 PDT 2009

I don't believe Chris was speaking in any official capacity for YT or Google
any more than I am.  I think it is inappropriate to conflate his opinion of
the matter with Google's.  I have not seen _any_ official statement from
Google regarding codec quality.

As an aside, I think taking the available recent public comparisons as
"definitive proof" that Theora is (or is not!) "comparable" to H.264 is
inappropriate (and goes further than the Theora developers have).  Codec
comparison is tricky and broad, and a definitive comparison (which I have
not performed) would require a large variety of types/quality of input,
compressed with many different option choices, and compared on both
subjective and objective criteria.  It also would include coverage of issues
like how much buffer is needed to ensure continuous play, whether the
quality can be dynamically degraded, storage space and CPU usage required on
th encoding side, device support (current and projected), etc.

Or, to simplify, you're oversimplifying in your declarations that one codec
is as good as another.


On Jul 1, 2009 9:55 AM, "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:

2009/7/1 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette at google.com>:

> all of Google to suddenly release all of its information that has
legitimate > business reasons f...
I think it is reasonable to expect Google to address their statements
of reasons being demonstrated false, however. They have notably failed
to do so. Is Chris DiBona still reading? "Oh sorry, I was completely
wrong" or "you're wrong and here's why" would go a long way to restore
any trust in Google on this matter.

- d.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090701/e3693c71/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list