Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

On Jul 4, 2009, at 4:10 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> I guess that would depend on what you presume my purpose in asking  
> this question is.
>
> Your claim that common codecs aren't required for interop baffles  
> me.  I believe that "Because this isn't required for interop" to be  
> a false statement.  I very much believe that video is a valuable  
> feature of HTML5, but *only* if there is a common, royalty free  
> codec that is implemented across compliant implementations.  If that  
> isn't the case, then the video element should be deferred (either to  
> HTML6 or by naming the next release HTML4.2 or somesuch, I care not).

Can you explain the benefits of not specifying the <video> element at  
all, relative to specifying it without a required codec? Earlier, I  
posted some markup that will work across all browsers currently  
implementing <video> or that have announced future support, in  
response to your comments, but you didn't reply. Here is an example of  
a useful Web page that uses the dual encoding technique: <http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/performance/ 
 >. Do you think it would be an improvement to make such markup  
noncomforming and its behavior unspecified? If so, why?

Regards,
Maciej