[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome

Robert O'Callahan robert at ocallahan.org
Sun Jun 7 17:55:47 PDT 2009

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote:

> Reprehensible? Mozilla (and all the rest) supports those same "open
> web" features through its plugin architecture.

People don't usually think of Flash as part of the "open Web" (except for
certain Adobe evangelists).

Why don't you make a
> stand and shut down compatibility with plugins from flash, quicktime
> and others? How long would Firefox last in the market if it were
> incompatible with those? Honestly.

Even if supporting plugins was against our principles, which I'm not
convinced of, it's currently impossible to drop support for them and remain
relevant, so we'd have to compromise, but that wouldn't make plugins

If patent-encumbered codecs delivered via <video> become essential for Web
browsing then we'll have to make some compromises, but that wouldn't change
their reprehensibility.

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090608/7b777a92/attachment-0002.htm>

More information about the whatwg mailing list