- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:53:59 +0200
- To: James Salsman <jsalsman@talknicer.com>
- Cc: Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com, public-device-apis@w3.org
Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 à 18:18 -0700, James Salsman a écrit : > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 8:42 AM, <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote: > Why is a discussion of codec defaults more appropriate for the HTML > working group? Codecs are parts of devices. The HTML Working Group defines the framework in which most of our APIs are being run; in particular, it defines an <audio> element to read audio resources, where no default codec has been defined at this stage. There is very little reason to think that defining a default codec as part of an additional API would actually make browsers support that codec if they're not already supporting for other reasons, and clearly HTML5 would be the most likely successful reason. > How can the assertion that consensus is likely to be difficult on a > question about the most appropriate default be construed as opposition > to the proposed default if a superior alternative hasn't been > proposed? It's not being construed as opposition, simply not construed as consensus. In other words, the fact that there was no explicit support for your proposal, combined with the well-known difficulties in finding codecs that meet the requirements, make us assess that the proposal hasn't gathered consensus. Dom
Received on Friday, 17 September 2010 06:54:18 UTC