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

Re: Codecs for <audio> and <video>

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:30:08 +0000 (UTC)
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907042118110.1060@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> I have repeatedly seen you use the idea of a "first version" of HTML5 
> and delaying the solution to several problems to a "second version" of 
> HTML5.

Not of HTML5, but of the relevant feature.

For example, <video> right now is on v2. v1 was the original Opera 
proposal with just play() and pause(). Then we iterated on that and 
(primarily based on Apple's experience with Quicktime) we introduced a 
number of features that are now what I refer to as "v2" in the spec's 
source. Once all the browser vendors have implemented this in an 
interoperable and high-quality fashion, then we can move on to "v3" of the 
<video> feature, which can add further APIs and features.

<canvas> is actually on v3 already; v1 was what the original proposal from 
Apple was, and in v2 and v3 we introduced features like getImageData() and 
the text output respectively. v4 is the next stage for <canvas>, where I 
imagine the main thing we'll add is a first-class path object.

> Could you confirm what I have come to understand by these versions, 
> namely: you are currently driving the specification to a "first stable 
> version" by October this year for a Last Call (as mentioned in the email 
> ecerpt below).

The versions to which I refer have no bearing on the state of the spec in 
the W3C process. As noted, some features in HTML5 are already in v2 or 
even v3. I'm not really sure how (once we're past last call) the W3C 
process will jibe with the continuous development of browsers; I've argued 
in the past that we should move to a continuous model for specs also, but 
that doesn't really work with the W3C process. Maybe once we're in last 
call I'll fork the spec into an HTML5 and an HTML6 and only do maintenance 
for HTML5, adding new features only to HTML6.

> I - like many others - am disappointed that e.g. video accessibility 
> hasn't made it into the spec at this point in time

Video accessibility _is_ in <video> right now, it's just not exposed in 
the API and there's no declarative way to assign a separate caption file 
with a video file (you have to serve them as one file). However, that's 
quite different from there not being an accessibility story. It's the same 
accessibility story as TV, DVD, etc.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 4 July 2009 21:30:45 UTC

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