- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:57:56 -0400
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: robert@ocallahan.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
Hi, Hixie- > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch > <mailto:ian@hixie.ch>> wrote: > (I've also received requests from browser vendors to not > require WAVE support in the first place, though I have up to this > point managed to convince them to keep WAVE support regardless.) Now both Robert O'Callahan (Mozilla) and David Singer (Apple) have questioned this decision not to include WAV/PCM. While I'm not saying they necessarily represent the official views of their companies, it does seem to be at odds with the claim that browser vendors want you to remove the audio codec; I doubt Microsoft or Opera has a problem with it either. Can you please cite the public source for these codec-removal requests? Who exactly has asked for this, and are you sure they speak for that browser vendor? I'm not at all convinced that you are reflecting the will of the browser vendors on this, nor representing the interests of authors or users. > It hasn't really been necessary, browser vendors have historically > implemented similar formats without the HTML spec having to get involved. ... > I don't think that mandating formats actually affects what browsers > implement, in practice. We can only mandate what they're already willing > to implement anyway. I hold HTML5 to a higher standard of precision than previous HTML specs, and I know you have as well. I think it is very ill-advised for you to change your position now, especially on so crucial an issue as this. Regards- -Doug Schepers W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs David Singer wrote (on 6/30/09 9:47 AM): > Yes, I am kinda puzzled. The fact that some formats are not suitable > for all kinds of content doesn't make them unsuitable for use. Wave/PCM, > and AVI/MotionJpeg+PCM are easily supported and OK for some uses (short > content). > > The downside to requiring them would be the implication that requirement > implies recommendation, that's all. > > > At 21:13 +1200 30/06/09, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch >> <mailto:ian@hixie.ch>> wrote: >> >> I didn't really see much value in having the section purely to >> require a >> >> small subset of WAVE functionality. WAVE in this context is only >> really >> useful during development, and since codecs are going to be a mess >> anyway, >> the author can just use whatever debugging-specific codec his main UA >> supports instead. >> >> >> Wave PCM is perfectly adequate for short sounds. It's fine for >> auditory cues in user interfaces. It's fine for most sound effects in >> games. >> >> (I've also received requests from browser vendors to not >> require WAVE support in the first place, though I have up to this >> point >> managed to convince them to keep WAVE support regardless.) >> >> >> That baffles me. I can't think of any reason someone would have a >> problem supporting Wave PCM. >> >> Rob >> -- >> "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our >> iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by >> his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each >> of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the >> iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6] > > > -- > > David Singer > Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 20:58:06 UTC