W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2007

[whatwg] Video proposals

From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:13:34 +0000
Message-ID: <6B9CD99A-E4ED-4B93-8301-9B5C1681BAA2@googlemail.com>

On 16 Mar 2007, at 23:58, H?kon Wium Lie wrote:

> Also sprach Robert Brodrecht:
>
>>> I'd rather make <video> and <audio> optional so that those who  
>>> cannot
>>> support these Ogg on these elements (for whatever reason) can still
>>> comply with the spec. They can also support proprietary codecs  
>>> through
>>> <object>.
>>
>> Do you mean make the elements themselves optional to support?
>
> Yes. If a vendor, for some reason, is unable to support the Ogg
> codecs, I think it's better that they (a) do not support <video>, than
> (b) they support <video> with proprietary codecs only.
>
> Interoperability has more value than conformace.

I think forcing browsers to support a codec when it is outdated is  
wrong. I don't want WA 1.0 to end up like RSS 2.0, having multiple  
versions incompatible with one another (in WA1.0's case different  
versions requiring different codecs).


- Geoffrey Sneddon
Received on Saturday, 17 March 2007 10:13:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:53 UTC