[whatwg] Chipset support is a good argument

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Sun Jul 5 13:51:11 PDT 2009

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009, Eric Flores wrote:
> I agree with 80% of your reponses to the Codecs for <audio> and <video> 
> conversation. However, I think that you are underestimating the 
> influencing power of the spec with regarding to available hardware 
> support. Hardcoding a spec in hardware is a very expensive and time 
> consuming proposition. Chipmakers do not see an incentive to add a spec 
> to their chips if they do not have guidance that provides them a 
> roadmap. Even if some of the browsers choose not to follow the spec, it 
> is good for everybody to have clarity on what is the recommended roadmap 
> (whatever roadmap is decided).

The point is that there is no decided roadmap.

> On the other side, I'm firmly convinced that some vested interest could
> lobby and even pay the chipmakers for having them not adding support to Ogg.
> This is a free market, isn't it?

As you say, it's a free market. If people want Theora chips, then it's 
likely that they will become available. For that to happen there has to be 
some demand for Theora support, though, which the spec's can't generate.

> Definitively not as important as the above, I also have some 
> reservations whenever you talk about alignment of 'all the players'. Are 
> you really expecting agreements from ALL the players? Or just the big 
> ones? I assume that you are disregarding the smallish browsers, aren't 
> you?

I'm talking primarily about the browser vendors who take part in this 
mailing list's discussions and have stated an opinion, regardless of size.

> Finally, it looks like Dirac looks worth discussing. I hope that their 
> proponents do not drop the ball.


Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list