Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

Sam Ruby wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>  >
>>> 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?
>>
>> Because this isn't required for interop, and so it's not critical.
> 
> Required for overlap?  I'm confused.

Ugg.  s/overlap/interop/

> If we don't have a commitment to support the video element at all by the 
> dominant browser vendor, and the effective overlap in supported codecs 
> between the next three major browser vendors is zero...
> 
> ... what meaningful overlap remains?

Here too.

> - Sam Ruby

- Sam Ruby

Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 01:36:17 UTC