- From: Remco <remco47@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:24:56 +0200
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Adam Shannon<ashannon1000 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Remco <remco47 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A few years ago, Vorbis as a baseline codec for <audio> was dismissed, >> because it was expected that the audio codec agreed upon to be used >> with <video> would also be used with <audio>. Now that agreement on a >> codec for <video> is out of the question, Vorbis can again be >> considered as a baseline codec for <audio>. >> >> To get the discussion started: a few reasons to require Vorbis for >> <audio>: >> >> * De facto baseline codec PCM WAV is ridiculous for music and spoken >> word - the major use cases of <audio> >> * Vorbis is the best lossy audio codec >> * Vorbis is widely adopted by major companies in portable media players >> * Vorbis is royalty-free > > It has been tried but Apple will not?implement?it due to hardware > limitations. Hardware limitations for audio? I can understand that certain hardware would not be powerful enough for video, but audio? I question the browsing performance of such a device. ;) Also, as I said, it has been implemented in countless portable devices. Hardware limitations cannot be a concern. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:18 AM, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > Given the problem we had with the video codec, I would like to request > that those of you interested in getting a standard audio codec do so by > directly working with the browser vendors to get an agreement. Isn't this the place where all browser vendors come together? Remco
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 17:24:56 UTC