[whatwg] Codecs for <audio> and <video>
pkasting at google.com
Tue Jun 30 12:46:28 PDT 2009
* 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
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
"The following standards are tested by Acid3: [...]
* SMIL 2.1 (subtests 75-76) [...]"
SMIL 2.1 became a W3C Recommendation in December 2005.
So, there is some precedent for the W3C to publish specs/tests,
expecting browser vendors to catch up with them further down the line.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg