- From: Ian Fette <ifette@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 07:56:40 -0700
2009/7/11 Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org>
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Philip J?genstedt <philipj at opera.com>wrote:
>
>> Well I disagree of course, because having canPlayType("video/ogg") mean
>> anything else than "can I demux Ogg streams" is pointless.
>>
>
> So you want "canPlayType" to mean one thing when provided a type without
> codecs, and another thing when provided a type with codecs. I don't think
> that's a good idea.
>
> Anyway, it's too late. If you care passionately about this you should have
> reopened this discussion months ago, not now that two browsers have just
> shipped support for the API in the spec.
>
Disagree -- the whole point of candidate rec (which the spec is driving
towards) is to find out how implementable the spec is -- not just from the
browser side, but from a web author side as well. If a feature turns out to
not be implementable / usable in practice, that is certainly valid feedback
at this stage.
(Not to say it wouldn't be better to have had this conversation earlier, but
I definitely don't think that the ship has sailed on this, and in practice
some things you only find out once it's implemented and you can actually try
using it.)
>
>
> Rob
> --
> "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
> the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
> healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
> own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
> 53:5-6]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090711/96a8e04b/attachment-0001.htm>
Received on Saturday, 11 July 2009 07:56:40 UTC