W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 11:38:35 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600907021638w1da7a721t341949d6ff9409b7@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> That baffles me. I can't think of any reason someone would have a
> > problem supporting Wave PCM.
> As I mentioned, as far as I'm aware the vendor in question will be
> supporting WAVE regardless, so this is a non-issue.

One problem with taking private feedback into account is that clearly some
of that feedback is completely bizarre and inexplicable. Because it's
private, the only person who can critique it is you. Limiting the critical
participants to one sabotages the virtues of critical thinking and
evidence-based reasoning that you yourself have promoted. "The first to
present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him."

It's fine for people to send you private feedback, but taking it into
account when editing the spec is irresponsible.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, David Singer wrote:
> > Yes, I am kinda puzzled.  The fact that some formats are not suitable
> > for all kinds of content doesn't make them unsuitable for use. Wave/PCM,
> > and AVI/MotionJpeg+PCM are easily supported and OK for some uses (short
> > content).
> >
> > The downside to requiring them would be the implication that requirement
> > implies recommendation, that's all.
> I really don't see much value in mentioning Wave PCM when we don't require
> any other codecs, image formats, etc.

The spec should require other codecs and image formats.

I do think it would be useful to document the formats, codecs, and
> standards supported by all browsers, including things like PNG or Wave
> PCM, and including being specific about what versions or profiles of
> various specs are supported (e.g. the specific sampling frequencies of
> PCM). I don't think HTML5 is a particularly suitable place for such
> documentation, though.

HTML5 is a natural place for this, since authors using <img> or <video> will
be looking there already. Even if a better place can be found, why not
follow your previous policy of adding a section to HTML5 and moving it out
if/when a better venue is found?

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 23:39:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:44:50 UTC