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

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Tue Jul 7 14:09:37 PDT 2009

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Kornel wrote:
> >
> > I'm arguing that it does matter what's in the spec, insofar that it 
> > should match what implementations do.
> Can we agree to disagree?

I'm not trying to convince you; I'm just explaining why the spec doesn't 
require Theora support right now.

> We've narrowed codecs down to two. The spec could say that UA which 
> supports <video> MUST implement at least one of Theora or H.264. All 
> vendors can comply with that, and that's better than not specifying any 
> codecs at all (e.g. doesn't allow browsers to support WMV only).

That may be where we end up if we really can't resolve this, yes. That 
would be unfortunate, thouh.

> Similarly, authors publishing <video> MUST put at least one source in 
> Theora or H.264, SHOULD publish both. That's probably what authors will 
> have to do to achieve interoperability in current situation.

We can't really require publishers to publish H.264 given that that will 
require license payments soon.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, SA Alfonso Baqueiro wrote:
> Instead of removing the video section from the spec, we should be 
> DEMOCRATIC, the codec that more vendors support should get in the spec, 
> like the goverments are elected.

The WHATWG is not a democracy.

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