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

Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio> (survey of positions on ISSUE-7 video-codecs)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:27:46 -0500
To: James Graham <jgraham@opera.com>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1248802066.16619.141894.camel@pav.lan>
I'm not sure how widely it was discussed, but we're collecting
positions on this codec issue:

ACTION-130 on Sam Ruby: Review status of video codec positions - due
2009-07-30

I think I owe Sam a few favors, and I want to swap this
into my own head, so here's what I can find:

On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 19:28 +0000, James Graham wrote:
> [...] My opinion on that issue is that we should reinsert a  
> note like the one we had before since people are still exploring the  
> options for a RF baseline codec.

I find this note that we had before...

[[
It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support
the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the
current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit
or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source
development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and
that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies.
This is an ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more
information is available.
]]
-- 4.8.7.1 Video and audio codecs for video elements
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-html5-20090423/video.html#video-and-audio-codecs-for-video-elements

I support that option. I think I prefer it.

>  I don't know how this sits with W3C  
> process if we want to go to LC though).

I don't see anything wrong with it, other than that we'd
delete the "This is an ongoing issue..." sentence when
we close issue-7.


We also have the editors' position, 30 Jun 2009
http://www.w3.org/mid/Pine.LNX.4.62.0906300444010.1648@hixie.dreamhostps.com

I'm having trouble finding the relevant spec text; maybe
that's because there no longer is any.

I can live with that option (i.e. don't require any codec
and don't even say why not) somewhat reluctantly. It seems
worth a bit of screen space to explain to our readers
what we spent so many collective person-months figuring out.

We also have:
proposed audio/video codec text Rob Sayre (Tuesday, 7 July)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0267.html
"User Agents MUST support the [OggTheora/OggVorbis] codec as a source 
for the video/audio element. At the time of this writing, some popular 
clients and environments are not currently capable of meeting this 
conformance requirement, so authors should be aware that additional 
media resources might be necessary."

That option appeals to me, but I don't see any argument
that would convince a critical mass of the WG/market to support it
in the near/medium term, so I wonder if pursuing is a good use of WG time.


I'm not sure I should have mixed my opinion about the options
in with the enumeration; clearly it doesn't scale for 400+ of
us to give our positions in email. I drafted a form-based survey
  http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/codec-positions/

I set the start date in the future so that nobody can answer
it until it's been reviewed by Sam/Chris and/or a few others;
I hope people can look it over, though I'm not
sure how access control works for surveys that aren't yet open.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 17:27:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:48 UTC