- From: Preston L. Bannister <preston@bannister.us>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 10:22:45 -0700
- To: public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <7e91ba7e0704061022x37d094bdpd416ae84e3fd8623@mail.gmail.com>
To this I too most strongly agree. > Dan Connolly wrote: > [snip] > > 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. On 4/6/07, Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com> wrote: > 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 > deliverables. > [snip] There is simply too little benefit, too much risk, and nothing close to consensus. What benefit is there in a standard video format? Video on the web exists now. Video players are <object>/<embed> plug-ins, and generally work. It will be 5-10 years (at least) before all the old browser versions die off, and any new <video> format could be generally used. Would a video format chosen 10 years ago be considered a good choice today? The risk comes both from both patents and obsolescence. Plug-ins seem a good way to address either risk. This topic is generating a lot of traffic on the mailing list, and little consensus. Better to move this discussion elsewhere (where - admittedly - I hope to ignore it) and outside the scope of this group.
Received on Friday, 6 April 2007 17:22:56 UTC