- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:13:34 +0000
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