- From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:34:25 -0400
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
I'd like to get feedback on the proposed text below. If you have already repeatedly stated your opinion on the virtues of Ian's approach, there is no need to reply to my message. Also, this is not a change request addressed to Ian. Rationale: The goal of each W3C Working Group is to produce a Recommendation that is not only technically sound, but that can be implemented according to the W3C Royalty-Free License requirements. [1] I suspect this issue is polarizing because some feel that audio/video elements without credible baseline codecs serve as a trojan for encumbered content, but clients supporting only encumbered codecs could claim to conform to an open, interoperable W3C specification.* A secondary concern is that, aside from failing to meet W3C RF goals, the specification is lying by omission in purporting to specify an interoperable Web, but failing to note that more than one video file could be needed to satisfy all popular clients. This proposal attempts to rectify both concerns by requiring Vorbis/Theora for conforming clients and noting that some popular clients and environments are not currently capable of meeting this conformance requirement. Proposal: Add the following to the video/audio element sections: "User Agents MUST support the [OggTheora/OggVorbis] codec as a source for the video/audio element. At the time of this writing, some popular clients and environments are not currently capable of meeting this conformance requirement, so authors should be aware that additional media resources might be necessary." Closing notes: I feel this UA requirement (it is not an authoring requirement) is both more accurate with regard to current practicalities and more faithful to the goals of the W3C. thanks, Rob * It is true that other elements exist to do just this sort of thing, but they are not generally referred to as W3C HTML5 technologies, and we already have evidence of interoperability failures among clients claiming to conform to HTML5. See for example: http://www.youtube.com/html5. A look at the source reveals the following markup: <video width="640" height="360" src="/demo/google_main.mp4?2" autobuffer> <div class="video-fallback"> <br>You must have an HTML5 capable browser. </div> </video> [1] http://www.w3.org/2004/02/05-patentsummary.html
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 22:35:08 UTC