- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 09:59:34 +1000
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > 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. Seeing as XiphQT is available, I think that argument is weakened - it is not as clean cut as "no support", which is what happened with past W3C specs. I am more concerned whether we would alienate Apple by such a move, which would be counter-productive. But maybe one of the Apple people could voice what they would be concerned with if Theora was put into the spec as baseline codec right now. Just to ascertain: putting Theora into the spec does not mean other codecs cannot be used. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 00:00:41 UTC