- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:30:36 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote: > >> > >> So the only way to move forward that I can see is to ensure Theoras > >> popularity. Having HTML 5 endorse theora would be a big step in that > >> direction (the last point is as I understand it the one you don't > >> agree with?). > > > > I don't think the spec will have any effect on Theora's popularity. In > > fact, Theora is probably already more popular than anything else in > > the spec, if we go by volume of e-mail sent per topic. Nothing else in > > the spec has resulted in this much media attention. > > In your eyes, what would be the downside of writing Theora into the > spec? It seems to me that many people see an advantage in doing so. I > haven't heard of any disadvantages yet. The downside is that it would not match reality. I think it would be harmful to spec something that is actively different than what a browser vendor will implement. This is why HTML5 started -- because the W3C wrote specs that were idealistic and did not match the actual deployed landscape. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 23:31:15 UTC