- From: Robert J Crisler <rcrisler1@unl.edu>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:55:53 -0500
I wrote: >> From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that >> the ideals of the W3C as expressed in 3.12.7.1 <http://3.12.7.1> >> 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 3.12.7.1 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