Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> 
> > I removed audio codecs section just for consistency and because in the 
> > big picture it doesn't make any sense to have just that section if we 
> > don't have the others (since as far as I'm aware, all the codecs that 
> > we could put in this section -- namely just Wave PCM -- are being 
> > implemented by everyone anyway).
> 
> As Doug noted, removing something from the spec because you know 
> everyone's going to do it anyway is absurd.

I don't think a reference to another spec is the same as a language 
feature.

HTML5 also doesn't require a specific version of DOM Core, doesn't require 
JS support, doesn't require HTTP support, etc. That's intentional -- the 
idea of keeping specs orthogonal in fact is one of the things I keep 
hearing complaints that HMTL5 doesn't do well _enough_.

Having said that, as I noted to Doug, if there is a desire to increase the 
number of explicit normative dependencies, and if someone is willing to do 
the work to get the relevant lists drawn up, I'm happy to add such lists 
to the spec.


> But as a general rule, I don't believe you alone can always provide the 
> best possible response to feedback.

I absolutely agree, that's why I always push for feedback to be sent 
publicly. People aren't always willing to do so, though.


> > > It's fine for people to send you private feedback, but taking it 
> > > into account when editing the spec is irresponsible.
> >
> > So if you ever point out a typo to me over lunch, I can't fix it? :-)
> 
> Obviously if something is uncontroversial beyond reasonable doubt, 
> that's not a problem.

I don't think I have ever taken controversial private feedback into 
account without asking for further advice from multiple other people 
publicly.


> If you're not sure where the line should be drawn

I thought I was sure where the line could be drawn, but then you told me 
that where I'd drawn it was irresponsible, so I wasn't sure any more. :-)


On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> >
> > > Further to this topic, I wonder why Vorbis was not able to qualify 
> > > for the <audio> tag as a baseline codec.
> >
> > If anyone can get Apple to implement it, I'd be more than happy to 
> > update the spec to mention that as the common audio codec.
> 
> Has Apple actually declined to support it? Is your knowledge of Apple's 
> position based on public or private feedback? Maciej's not aware of a 
> stated position: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090703#l-371

Apple doesn't implement Vorbis, but I don't think I've ever actually had 
anyone from Apple explicitly say that they won't do it. I've requested a 
clarification of their position.


> On a related note, can you identify whether Apple is one of the vendors 
> who you deem is refusing to support Theora? Maciej, at least, thinks 
> it's OK to say so. http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090703#l-354

I have said so already:

   http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html

Apple not being willing to implement Theora is the only reason I didn't 
require Theora support. (Mozilla and Opera not being willing to implement 
H.264 was the only reason I didn't require H.264 support.)

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 06:51:05 UTC