Re: [whatwg] Video proposals

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:53:18 +0100, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
> wrote:
> 
>>> What WHATWG has been shooting for, is one common codec.  At this
>>> point, WHATWG folks want Theora.
>>
>> Yes, it's a likable format. If anyone has better ideas, this is the
>> time to step forward.
> 
> I'm no format, video, encoder or law expert, but how does MPEG-4 fit? I
> know that it's at least considered to be the best alternative for
> professional video by most video camera vendors as well as producers in
> the professional video and broadcasting world. Theora is nice because
> it's FOSS, but I believe e.g. H.264 is a lot better in quality and will
> also prove better in hardware decoding support in the coming months/years.

I think that specification of video codec doesn't belong to HTML
specification. Codecs and media formats are changing much more rapidly
then surrounding markup languages.

But for maintaining interoperability it is necessary to define some
basic set of widely recognized formats. I would support separate W3C
effort to define "Web profile" which would say something like: "Your Web
should be made only of HTML X.Y, CSS 2.1, GIF, PNG, JPEG, MP3 and Theora
files if you want to be it accessible to the largest audience."

   Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO/JTC1/SC34 member
------------------------------------------------------------------
 Want to speak at XML Prague 2007 => http://xmlprague.cz/cfp.html