- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 21:09:37 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Kornel wrote: > > > > 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? I'm not trying to convince you; I'm just explaining why the spec doesn't require Theora support right now. > 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). That may be where we end up if we really can't resolve this, yes. That would be unfortunate, thouh. > 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. We can't really require publishers to publish H.264 given that that will require license payments soon. On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, SA Alfonso Baqueiro wrote: > > Instead of removing the video section from the spec, we should be > DEMOCRATIC, the codec that more vendors support should get in the spec, > like the goverments are elected. The WHATWG is not a democracy. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 14:09:37 UTC