- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:15:26 -0500
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:29 +0200, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: > Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > We would personally prefer the MPEG-4 family of codecs (AAC, MPEG-4 > > > Part II, H.264) to be a common baseline. > > > > We don't think it's appropriate to mandate it in the spec, though > > > Yeah, what he said. :) > > Let me take a different view. > > I will argue that (a) having a universally understood baseline video > format is a good thing for the web; (b) that in order to achieve this, > the specifications must mandate it; and (c) that MPEG-4/H.264 isn't > it. Your argument makes a good case for a standardization effort. If there are two other member organizations that support it, that's sufficient to start an incubator group. http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ By making your argument here, you're asking me chair a discussion of which video codec is right for the web. I'm nearly overwhelmed by the breadth of the discussion topics already in our scope without adding this one. http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html#scope If there were consensus to add this to our charter, I would consider putting together a proposal to the W3C membership to do so. But opinions are clearly divided, so I suggest we leave it out of scope for this Working Group. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 13:27:43 UTC