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

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

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:37:57 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0907290032380.3189@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Mike Shaver wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Peter Kasting<pkasting at google.com> wrote:
> > It makes sense if you think about it -- whether YouTube sends videos encoded
> > as H.264 is irrelevant to what the _baseline_ codec for <video> needs to be,
> > it is only relevant as additional info for vendors deciding whether to
> > support H.264.
> Yes, I concur --  I couldn't think of any reason for that to be
> relevant to the discussion of baseline codecs at first, so I tried to
> make it fit (and asked questions about the details of it).
> I will patiently await the details. :-)

It wasn't directly relevant, I was just listing what I knew about the 
landscape. The only truly relevant point is that Apple isn't implementing 
Theora, at this point (and Microsoft don't have any <video> support at 
all). Since Mozilla, Opera, and Google all do Theora, if Apple (or 
Microsoft) implemented Theora, then there'd be enough of a critical mass 
to make it the baseline codec. As it stands, it's more of an even split 
than I feel confortable with in terms of making the spec take a stand.

Anyway, I don't want to respark this thread, since no new information is 
forthcoming at this point. I hear Apple are studying this in more detail 
again; maybe they will change their mind. We'll see.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 17:37:57 UTC

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