W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <asbjorn@ulsberg.no>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:30:37 +0100
To: "Jirka Kosek" <jirka@kosek.cz>
Cc: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "Robert Brodrecht" <w3c@robertdot.org>, public-html@w3.org, whatwg@whatwg.org
Message-ID: <op.tpjd9bgg5rel5w@quark>

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:00:53 +0100, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote:

> I think that specification of video codec doesn't belong to HTML
> specification. Codecs and media formats are changing much more rapidly
> then surrounding markup languages.

I agree to a certain extent in what you write. However, I think that  
specifying a mandatory baseline codec is so valuable that it will be more  
gained than lost from doing it. It will enable authors to use one baseline  
format in all of their videos without thinking about browser support. Only  
if they choose another codec will they have to test for support in  
browsers, because its support isn't required by the HTML specification.

> But for maintaining interoperability it is necessary to define some
> basic set of widely recognized formats. I would support separate W3C
> effort to define "Web profile" which would say something like: "Your Web
> should be made only of HTML X.Y, CSS 2.1, GIF, PNG, JPEG, MP3 and Theora
> files if you want to be it accessible to the largest audience."

If such an initiative was supported by the four major browser vendors, I  
would support it wholehartedly too. However, at this point in time, no  
such intiative exists and I am a bit doubtful of how it would be supported  
by the browser vendors.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:30:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:30:09 GMT