[whatwg] Video

I wrote:

>> From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that
>> the ideals of the W3C as expressed in <>  
>> would
>> result in a situation that would be superior to simply letting the
>> international standards body for audio and video codecs deal with  
>> these
>> technological areas.

Gervase Markham wrote:

> Your plan would, at least, prevent the "standard" codec being  
> supported
> on Free operating systems. Meeting as it stands would not
> prevent this. Therefore, it would be a superior situation.

David Gerard wrote:

The actual solution is a large amount of compelling content in Theora
or similar. Wikimedia is working on this, though we're presently
hampered by a severe lack of money for infrastructure and are unlikely
to have enough in time for FF3/Webkit/HTML5.

- d.

It will be very, very difficult to develop critical mass for content  
encoded in Theora (or Dirac), much less ubiquity. I'm not saying  
there's no point in trying. I applaud the effort, though I have  
misgivings about the W3C setting itself up as a video/audio standards  
organization when we already have the Motion Picture Experts Group.

But ... why not recommend that web developers encode in MPEG-4 AVC or  
Theora? At least that would give some direction out of the current  
morass. ISO/IEC standards, like AVC/h.264, are vastly preferable to  
single-vendor (non)standards from Adobe, MS and Real. Why should the  
W3C choose not create a better situation than the current one (which  
is a mess for developers and a mess for users), while continuing to  
work on the ideal?


Robert J Crisler

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080402/829c7c01/attachment.htm>

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2008 08:55:53 UTC