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

[Jeff McAdams]

Peter Kasting wrote:
> As a contributor to multiple browsers, I think it's important to note 
> the distinctions between cases like Acid3 (where IIRC all tests were 
> supposed to test specs that had been published with no dispute for 5 
> years), much of HTML5 (where items not yet implemented generally have 
> agreement-on-principle from various vendors) and this issue, where 
> vendors have publicly refused to implement particular cases.  Particular 
> specs in the first two cases represent vendor consensus, and when 
> vendors discover problems during implementation the specs are changed.  
> This is not a case where vendor consensus is currently possible (despite 
> the apparently naive beliefs on the part of some who think the vendors 
> are merely ignorant and need education on the benefits of codec x or y), 
> and "just put it in the spec to apply pressure" is not a reasonable 
> response.

I don't know that anyone has suggested putting it in the spec *only* to 
apply pressure to vendors.  Certainly that is an added "bonus" (I'll put 
that in quotes because not everyone will consider that a positive 
thing), and certainly doing so will achieve the goal of applying 
pressure.  But I agree that putting it in the spec to *only* apply 
pressure to vendors is not reasonable, but considering it as an 
additional reason to put it in the spec, is quite reasonable.

-- 
Jeff McAdams
jeffm at iglou.com