- From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:19:12 -0700
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Mike Shaver <mike.shaver at gmail.com> wrote: > which led me to believe that YouTube's opinion was part of the > relevant-vendor positions which led to the choice to not specify a > codec. If it's not relevant, then its inclusion was certainly quite > confusing > I am referring to emails sent after that point (sorry, don't have direct quotes handy) which, IIRC, said that the reason Theora was not named a baseline codec was Apple's decision not to support it, and that if people convinced Apple to support it, that decision would be changed. It makes sense if you think about it -- whether YouTube sends videos encoded as H.264 is irrelevant to what the _baseline_ codec for <video> needs to be, it is only relevant as additional info for vendors deciding whether to support H.264. PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090714/6246af84/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 11:19:12 UTC