W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2009

[whatwg] Codecs for <audio> and <video>

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:14:13 +0200
Message-ID: <op.uwek1zgg64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:29:17 +0200, Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com>  
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com>  
> wrote:
>> The "vendor consensus" line of argument seems like a very dangerous
>> slippery slope. It would mean that whenever a vendor refuses to  
>> implement something it has to be taken out of the specification. I.e.  
>> giving a single vendor veto power over the documentation of the Web  
>> Platform. Not good at all in my opinion.
>
> I am merely echoing Hixie; from his original email in this thread:
>
>>> At the end of the day, the browser vendors have a very effective
>>> absolute veto on anything in the browser specs,
>>
>> You mean they have the power to derail a spec?
>
> They have the power to not implement the spec, turning the spec from a
> useful description of implementations into a work of fiction.
>
>> That's something I would have considered before the advent of Mozilla
>> Firefox.
>
> Mozilla also has the power of veto here. For example, if we required that
> the browsers implement H.264, and Mozilla did not, then the spec would be
> just as equally fictional as it would be if today we required Theora.

I disagree with the characterization Ian makes here as I believe being  
royalty free is very important for the formats we actively deploy to the  
Web and as such H.264 is not an option.


> My sole goal was to try and point out that the situation with codecs is  
> not equivalent to past cases where vendors merely _hadn't implemented_  
> part of the spec; in this case vendors have _actively refused_ to  
> implement support for various codecs (Apple with Theora and  
> Mozilla(/Opera?) with H.264).

Somehow I doubt that if e.g. Opera vetoed the <video> element it would  
actually be removed from the specification. And if it that were the case I  
would consider it to be very bad as I mentioned in my initial email in  
this thread.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 12:14:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:13 UTC