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

Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:13:38 -0400
Message-ID: <4A4DD9D2.2050601@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, 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 interop?  I'm confused.
> 
> I mean that we don't have to have a spec to get browsers to all implement 
> PNG or DOM2 Core. The whole point of the proposed spec would have been to 
> document what interop exists, and what interop browser vendors predict the 
> next generation will have, so such a spec by definition wouldn't be needed 
> for interop. Thus, since we agree that on the long term it doesn't belong 
> in HTML5, it doesn't make sense to add it to HTML5 just to remove it 
> later. This is unlike other features that we added then removed later, 
> which were added because there was an immediate need for a spec to obtain 
> interop amongst interested implementors.

You lost me again, and furthermore you are asserting an agreement on a 
topic that I don't recall expressing an opinion on.

The original topic was "required for interop".

If the goal of HTML 5 is to document what interop exists at this point 
in time in 2009, then HTML 5 would have no video tag at all; instead 
HTML 5 would document how YouTube currently works.

Until other things that are intended to be split out later are, in fact, 
split out I don't see any point in discussing further what the final 
form of the document will be.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 10:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC