W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2012

Re: MPEG2-TS activity in Bugzilla

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:13:55 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dtBWqwi6F-8C_kEw5uAUyLex-_w0smJhPB20mK83A3yg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: public-html WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Giladi <alex.giladi@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> > It is codec-independent -- it's only concerned with use of MPEG-2
> Transport Stream as a container.
> Right, but usually there is some concrete motivation behind
> introducing support codec-independent containers. I'm curious what the
> concrete motivation is.
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > Could you supply some reference(s) [to bugzilla entries]?
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17094
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14492#c6
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14422#c3


> > Do you have any comment on the use of MPEG-2 video?
> Personally, I think it would be a terrible idea to introduce an MPEG-2
> video dependency to the Web platform.

agreed (there should be no mandatory dependency from HTML5 spec or its
extensions) to MPEG-2; i.e., there should be no normative statement that
translates to 'MPEG-2 *must* be supported in a UA'; however, that doesn't
mean we can't have text prescribing behavior in the case that MPEG-2 *is*

> > In general, it is a commercial video requirement to support
> > MPEG-2 video, either in PS or TS forms (or both).
> It appears that in the above sentence "commercial video" is not an
> euphemism for content that Hollywood requires to be wrapped in DRM,
> since H.264 plus DRM already seems to be used for that case.
> What sort of use case, concretely, does "commercial video" mean in the
> above sentence? (I have my guesses, but I'd rather not proceed to
> discuss strawmen without confirming first.)

to elaborate, the requirement is based on legacy usage, and not related to
distribution agreements
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 15:14:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:53 UTC