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

Jeff McAdams jeffm at iglou.com
Tue Jun 30 12:30:55 PDT 2009

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

More information about the whatwg mailing list