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

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 00:19:37 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907030011430.1053@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> >
> > Actually HTML5 is largely built on the idea of speccing the de-facto 
> > standards, either long after they were implemented, or in tandem with 
> > them being implemented. Very little of HTML5 has been ahead of 
> > implementations.
> 
> What about Internet Explorer, the browser with the largest market share? 
> Bascially all of HTML5 is ahead of being implemented in IE. I don't 
> think that argument holds.

Not every part of HTML5 is implemented by everyone at the same time. 
There's always going to be some areas that are ahead of simple 
implementations, as different vendors focus on different things.

Plenty in HTML5 was implemented by IE first, though -- drag and drop, 
contentEditable, XHR (now in a separate spec), etc.


> > No; my only argument against Theora is that Apple won't implement it.
> 
> What about XiphQT? It doesn't matter that Apple doesn't natively support 
> Theora - the software exists to provide the support.

Does XiphQT ship with Safari? If not, then it doesn't count as part of the 
implementation.


> Therefore, the argument that "Apple doesn't support Theora" doesn't hold 
> up. It's not Apple that matters, but their browser. Safari and Webkit 
> have Theora support. There is an implementation.

Safari on my iPod Touch certainly doesn't, even with all the will in the 
world on the behalf of the user to install third-party software.


> In fact, I have not heard Apple object violently to an inclusion of 
> Theora into the specification as baseline codec. I have only heard them 
> object to a native implementation in Safari for submarine patent threat 
> reasons.

Their objection to implementing the requirement if it is put in the spec 
is what is holding up the spec requiring it.


> That I can understand. But in this case, you should leave the paragraph 
> in the spec that states the need for a baseline codec, since the 
> situation hasn't changed and we are still striving for a baseline codec.

I'm not holding up the spec just because we haven't found a codec to use 
with the spec. This working group can override me on this if it is the 
desire of the group, but in the meantime, I'm trying to drive down to Last 
Call by October and part of that is going through open issues and either 
resolving them, or admitting that they can't be resolved by then and 
moving on. The alternative is to deadlock, and that is worse.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 17:19:37 UTC

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