[whatwg] Google's use of FFmpeg in Chromium and Chrome

> To me, it seems more like Google doesn't really want to take a position in
> the matter regarding codecs and is taking the "weird" way out by using
> ffmpeg. Given Google's dominance in search, which tends to bring people to
> at least look at Google's products, anything Google does is examined with a
> fine toothpick and commented about pretty much everywhere. So yes, anything
> Google does will be taken as an example for others, regardless of the sane
> way to do it. Even if Google's method is sane to them and not to others,
> people will take it as otherwise.
> That's?fine?if?Google?doesn't?want?to?take?a?position,?but this squabbling
> does not help anything at all....

I think we've taken a very clear position on compliance but...

> And the <video> tag will be rendered useless if no default codec is
> specified. Same for <audio>.

This is really a matter for the spec to handle one way or another, not Google.


Received on Saturday, 6 June 2009 19:16:52 UTC