- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:20:36 +0200
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:59:24 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> > wrote: >> I sort of get the feeling that defining our own magic list of codec >> keywords that map to existing formats would have been easier :/ (Also >> for >> authors.) > > You mean easier than using a number? Possibly, although there are at > least 104 Wave codecs (!). Ouch. > But we can still do that, and support both names and numbers in the > future, if someone's motivated enough to make up a keyword list. I just meant that since the media type plus codecs parameter is not quite stable yet and also complicated maybe it would've been more worth it to just have a magic list of keywords for the configurations browsers support. However, if there are already at least 104 WAVE codecs that might get a bit unwieldy. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2009 07:21:15 UTC