W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Mandated Video Format

From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:22:45 -0700
Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0704061022x37d094bdpd416ae84e3fd8623@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org
To this I too most strongly agree.

> Dan Connolly wrote:
> [snip]
> > If there were consensus to add this to our charter, I would consider
> > putting together a proposal to the W3C membership to do so.
> > But opinions are clearly divided, so I suggest we leave it
> > out of scope for this Working Group.

On 4/6/07, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com> wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly.  This is a necessary conversation, but it is out
> of scope for a WG that should be focused on the syntax and APIs of HTML.
>   Sorry to have brought it up here, but it does impact this group's
> deliverables.
> [snip]

There is simply too little benefit, too much risk, and nothing close to
consensus.

What benefit is there in a standard video format?  Video on the web exists
now.  Video players are <object>/<embed> plug-ins, and generally work.  It
will be 5-10 years (at least) before all the old browser versions die off,
and any new <video> format could be generally used.  Would a video format
chosen 10 years ago be considered a good choice today?

The risk comes both from both patents and obsolescence.  Plug-ins seem a
good way to address either risk.

This topic is generating a lot of traffic on the mailing list, and little
consensus.  Better to move this discussion elsewhere (where - admittedly - I
hope to ignore it) and outside the scope of this group.
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 17:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:42 UTC