[whatwg] Codec mess with <video> and <audio> tags

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Peter Kasting <pkasting at google.com> wrote:

> 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

Didn't all major browsers back then support the BMP format? I seem to
remember that most pages back then either used BMP or GIF.

But you are right about that. However, it took an inordinately long time
before a patent-free image format began to dominate the web
space. Mainly because we didn't have PNG for a very long time.

With HTML5 and the <video> tag, we can avoid that by specifying a
codec that is patent-free and all that jazz. Really
what we need is someone that is really good at the art of persuasion, and
setting them on Google, Apple, and the other naysayers for Ogg video to
convince them that Ogg Theora and Vorbis is the best choice for the common
codec to standardize on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090607/9e1f3d61/attachment.htm>

Received on Sunday, 7 June 2009 20:13:08 UTC