- From: Mike Shaver <mike.shaver@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:14:47 -0400
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Peter Kasting<pkasting at google.com> wrote: > I believe Ian said concretely in a prior email that it is Apple's objection > to Theora, not YouTube's, that prevents it from being named as a baseline > codec. In his summary of the situation at http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html Ian said " Google has implemented H.264 and Ogg Theora in Chrome, but cannot provide the H.264 codec license to third-party distributors of Chromium, and have indicated a belief that Ogg Theora's quality-per-bit is not yet suitable for the volume handled by YouTube. " which led me to believe that YouTube's opinion was part of the relevant-vendor positions which led to the choice to not specify a codec. If it's not relevant, then its inclusion was certainly quite confusing Mike
Received on Tuesday, 14 July 2009 11:14:47 UTC