- From: King InuYasha <ngompa13@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 22:07:11 -0500
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Chris DiBona <cdibona at gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > > I think we've taken a very clear position on compliance but... > > [snip] > > This is really a matter for the spec to handle one way or another, not > Google. > > Chris > Compliance does not mean taking a position. It just means you follow the spec as it is currently written. As it is currently written, the default/recommended codec is not specified, so Google can do whatever. The spec is currently not finalized, even though there have been few changes the to <video> and <audio> parts of the HTML 5 recently. All people participating in this mailing list are basically working to get that done. Google, having a business primarily in the web, through search, advertisements, etc. has a vested interest in HTML 5. If most of the people interested in the <video> and <audio> parts of the spec settle on Theora/Vorbis as the codec pair that must be provided in any browser supporting those tags, then hopefully that part can be finished. This includes Google, by proxy of you, Chris, since you're not really saying that your posts do not reflect on Google, it could be assumed that. I gave my opinion ( http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020190.html ) supporting Theora and Vorbis as the opinion from the Enano CMS Project, which I am affiliated with. I suppose the same would be true for H?kon Wium Lie, since his posts don't say that either. But he is the CTO of Opera, he can say whatever I guess... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090606/8ceb8f83/attachment.htm>
Received on Saturday, 6 June 2009 20:07:11 UTC