- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:18:40 +0300
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTMLWG WG <public-html-media@w3.org>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > The W3C should not ignore real word use cases. And delivery via MPEG-2 is a > real-world use case. Delivery via MPEG-2 is not a use case. It's a potential solution for addressing a use case. Which browsers currently implement MPEG-2 without DRM in HTML5 video? Which one intend to? What about with DRM? Which content providers currently serve MPEG-2 in an HTML5-based player? Which ones intend to? What about with DRM? To address what use cases? Why with a codec that needs more bandwidth than either H.264 or VP8 and that comes with a less favorable licensing regime? > Currently shipping EME prototypes have no necessary bearing on what is > eventually required or shipped. To the extend video services target EME on Chrome OS, indications of requirements can be inferred. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 10:19:09 UTC