- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:44:45 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27025 --- Comment #5 from Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr> --- (In reply to Thue Janus Kristensen from comment #4) > I am not in doubt that the editors of HTML5 had the right concept in their > head, but the terms they used were not very precise, and possibly wrong. I agree the term can be misleading for non-experts. > So how can H.264/AVC be an algorithm, as you say, if it doesn't specify the > algorithm to use? I was too quick in answering. Algorithm is indeed not the best word. Video coding specifications define a bitstream syntax and provide sufficient information for implementors to implement encoding algorithms and decoding algorithms for this syntax. That's what I meant. > The term "codec" actually does not appear at all in the > H.264/AVC specification, which I think is a good indication that "codec" is > not an uncontroversial and clear word to use for H.264/AVC. That's one interpretation. > > HTML does not define the "codecs" parameter. HTML5 refers to the RFC 6381 [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6381] which defines a "codecs" parameter for MP4 files (and similar). > > Fair enough, changing from the codecs parameter is probably not feasible. > But I still think the HTML5 specification should be more precisely > formulated to avoid ambiguity around the "codec" term. Maybe it should clarify that it uses the term "codec" to designate the decoding process associated to the video format identified by the MIME type including sub-parameters and implemented by the browser. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 12 October 2014 19:44:46 UTC