- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 20:53:27 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27025
Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Assignee|dave.null@w3.org |silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> ---
EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
you have additional information and would like the Editor to reconsider, please
reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
title and text for the Tracker Issue; or you may create a Tracker Issue
yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
Status: Rejected
Rationale:
I think making an arbitrary distinction between codec and "video coding format"
is weird. The word "codec" has been used for many years interchangeably for
software that encodes and decodes, and for the specifications that define the
bitstream syntax and algorithms of decoding (and approach to encoding).
For example: http://www.theora.org/ talks about the "vorbis audio codec" and
http://www.theora.org/faq/#10 talks about "Theora is an open video codec".
After all, the specification is often just pseudo-code for an implementation,
so making that distinction seems a bit arbitrary.
As for the "codecs" parameter in the MIME type - that's not something HTML5
created, but is part of the MIME type definitions of IETF.
Closing this as WORKSFORME.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 12 October 2014 20:53:33 UTC