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

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

From: Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:50:17 +0100
Message-ID: <7D9B480F-CD65-48E0-A0F0-819E89D02D3E@geekhood.net>
> I'm arguing that it does matter what's in the spec, insofar that it  
> should
> match what implementations do.

Can we agree to disagree?

We've narrowed codecs down to two. The spec could say that UA which  
supports <video> MUST implement at least one of Theora or H.264. All  
vendors can comply with that, and that's better than not specifying  
any codecs at all (e.g. doesn't allow browsers to support WMV only).

Similarly, authors publishing <video> MUST put at least one source in  
Theora or H.264, SHOULD publish both. That's probably what authors  
will have to do to achieve interoperability in current situation.

These requirements won't ensure full interoperability - that is not  
possible with the impasse we have - but will match implementations,  
make situation clearer for authors and disallow even less  
interoperable implementations.

regards, Kornel
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 02:50:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:14 UTC