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