For that matter, HTML5 does not require a UA to support either the HTML syntax of HTML5 or the XML syntax of HTML5. A compliant HTML5 UA could support neither (albeit with little utility). HTML5 does *not* specify: - which top-level document types must be supported - which version of ECMAScript must be supported - which version/modules of CSS must be supported - which version/modules of DOM must be supported - which URI schemes (protocols) must be supported - which non-streaming media types must be supported - which streaming media types must be supported HTML5 is a technology framework specification that requires other specifications (profiles) to fill in these gaps. In the context of certain TV standardization activities, such work to define one or more profiles is already underway. N.B. I am not criticizing HTML5 for not making such choices. In fact, I think the editor and group has taken the best approach in that regard. G. On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 18:40 -0500, Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote: > > I think folks need to agree on the container format not the codec type. A > good container format will be good for several codecs that exist today and > will yet to come. > > My understanding is that the IP issues surrounding the codec types are > also surrounding the container formats and the streaming technologies. > So, I'd be surprised if any agreement was reached within the HTML > Working Group on those topics. I can't imagine a different conclusion > that the H.264/Theora discussion at this point. In any case, as Glenn > alluded to, HTML has been technology neutral since the beginning. Unless > I'm mistaken, we don't require implementations to support a specific > image format. > > Philippe > > >
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2011 01:34:19 UTC