[whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

If <video> supports fallback though, that 20% is enough to bootstrap and 
build support, especially as we all hope that that 20% continues to grow.

However, I do agree that the codec discussion should be tabled and that 
we should get back to the spec discussion... I've been ignoring much of 
the <video> discussion because it's mostly been off in the codec weeds. 
  I'll see if I can find some time to read over the proposals this 
weekend and give some constructive comments.

    - Vlad

David Hyatt wrote:
> I agree with this.  The tag isn't worth much to the Web if it's not 
> interoperable among *all* Web browsers.  That includes, unfortunately, 
> Internet Explorer.  That is why I think trying to pick a baseline format 
> in the WhatWG is premature.  Until the <video> element moves to the HTML 
> WG and we find out what Microsoft's opinion is on this subject, I'm not 
> really sure what the point is of this codec debate.  Even if the browser 
> vendors of the WhatWG all agreed to support Theora tomorrow, Mozilla + 
> Opera + Safari constitute only 20% of total browser market share.
> 
> That percentage is not even remotely compelling enough for content 
> authors to want to use the <video> element over proprietary alternatives 
> like Flash.
> 
> dave
> (hyatt at apple.com)
> 
>  seems On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:50 PM, H?kon Wium Lie wrote:
> 
>> Seriously, though, I think this group is concerned that having a
>> polished <video> interface isn't worth much in terms of
>> interoperability unless there is a baseline format.
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 00:03:31 UTC