Re: Mandated Video Format

Hi, Dan-

Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:29 +0200, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
>> 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.
> 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.
> 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.

I agree wholeheartedly.  This is a necessary conversation, but it is out 
of scope for a WG that should be focused on the syntax and APIs of HTML. 
  Sorry to have brought it up here, but it does impact this group's 

I guess this would fall under the category of "guidelines"?  My only 
concern is that an Incubator only lasts a year, succeed or fail, and 
that an intractable party could perform a stalling action... but let's 
hope that wouldn't happen.  Since it takes at least 3 member 
organizations to form an Incubator, I think it would behoove Microsoft, 
Apple, Mozilla, and Opera to create one and show good will toward 
settling this issue.  Further, I ask that it be done as a public 
charter, so we can see who's playing nice.

Cagematch!  3 codecs enter, one codec leaves!  Fight!


Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 14:27:08 UTC