[whatwg] Codecs for <audio> and <video>
Anne van Kesteren
annevk at opera.com
Wed Jul 1 12:14:13 PDT 2009
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:29:17 +0200, Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com>
>> The "vendor consensus" line of argument seems like a very dangerous
>> slippery slope. It would mean that whenever a vendor refuses to
>> implement something it has to be taken out of the specification. I.e.
>> giving a single vendor veto power over the documentation of the Web
>> Platform. Not good at all in my opinion.
> I am merely echoing Hixie; from his original email in this thread:
>>> At the end of the day, the browser vendors have a very effective
>>> absolute veto on anything in the browser specs,
>> You mean they have the power to derail a spec?
> They have the power to not implement the spec, turning the spec from a
> useful description of implementations into a work of fiction.
>> That's something I would have considered before the advent of Mozilla
> Mozilla also has the power of veto here. For example, if we required that
> the browsers implement H.264, and Mozilla did not, then the spec would be
> just as equally fictional as it would be if today we required Theora.
I disagree with the characterization Ian makes here as I believe being
royalty free is very important for the formats we actively deploy to the
Web and as such H.264 is not an option.
> My sole goal was to try and point out that the situation with codecs is
> not equivalent to past cases where vendors merely _hadn't implemented_
> part of the spec; in this case vendors have _actively refused_ to
> implement support for various codecs (Apple with Theora and
> Mozilla(/Opera?) with H.264).
Somehow I doubt that if e.g. Opera vetoed the <video> element it would
actually be removed from the specification. And if it that were the case I
would consider it to be very bad as I mentioned in my initial email in
Anne van Kesteren
More information about the whatwg