(Chair hat off still) On Mar 9, 2013, at 12:54 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sam, > > I personally would think it easiest to just add it to HTML5.1, which allows for a longer discussion timeframe. Since Chrome, Firefox and Opera support VP8 interoperably and VP8 meets the W3C RF requirements, it seems like the exit criteria are already met. > > However, we may have an interesting case here that doesn't fall into the current exit criteria: if we have two major browsers state that they will not implement a feature now or ever, the feature can't really become standard even if the current exit criteria are met. The goodwill to make it interoperable in the future is missing. > > This was the case here with IE and Safari refusing to implement VP8 support - and Opera and Mozilla refusing to implement H.264. H.264 will never meet the RF requirements of the W3C, so it can't be under discussion as a baseline codec. Arguments against VP8 mostly claimed IP uncertainty. It is the hope that this news can change these positions - at least for HTML5.1. I can't make any firm statements about future plans for Safari, but at least at this time I would still object to making VP8 mandatory to implement. The picture may change in the future as more information comes out. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 9 March 2013 22:25:09 UTC