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

[Peter Kasting]

* I didn't say "5 years from Rec status"
* Acid3 was meant to be an illustrative example of a case where the test
itself was not intentionally introducing new behavior or attempting to force
consensus on unwilling vendors, not a perfect analogy to something

PK

On Jun 30, 2009 12:36 PM, "Sam Kuper" <sam.kuper at uclmail.net> wrote:

2009/6/30 Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com>

> On Jun 30, 2009 2:17 AM, "Sam Kuper" <sam.kuper at uclmail.net> wrote: > > >
2009/6/30 Silvia Pfeiffe...
> 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. [...]

I'd question, based on the following statements, whether your memory
of Acid3 is correct:

"Controversially, [Acid3] includes several elements from the CSS2
recommendation that were later removed in CSS2.1 but reintroduced in
W3C CSS3 working drafts that have not made it to candidate
recommendations yet."[1]

"The following standards are tested by Acid3: [...]
   * SMIL 2.1 (subtests 75-76) [...]"[1]

SMIL 2.1 became a W3C Recommendation in December 2005.[2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronized_Multimedia_Integration_Language#SMIL_2.1

So, there is some precedent for the W3C to publish specs/tests,
expecting browser vendors to catch up with them further down the line.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090630/ef3feadd/attachment-0002.htm>