- From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 19:06:26 -0700
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp < nils-dagsson-moskopp at dieweltistgarnichtso.net> wrote: > > I do note that in a vacuum, there isn't a problem with not specifying > > any codec, as IIRC no codecs are specified for the <img> tag and yet > > practically most browsers implement a common subset and the web > > basically works. > > still, there was the issue with gif patents. just to remind you. > Yes, but I'm not sure how that relates at all to the statement I made that specifying no codecs for <img> does not prevent there from being a number of broadly-supported codecs. (But to reassure you, the days of ribbon campaigns and hostility to Unisys are indeed something I was around for.) PK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090607/053aec2e/attachment.htm>
Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 19:06:26 UTC