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

[whatwg] H.264-in-<video> vs plugin APIs

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:51:54 +1000
Message-ID: <2c0e02830906141651w34554692lc7d86da9bc0590b9@mail.gmail.com>
I'm sorry, but there is quite a bit of frustration from the past
hidden in my paragraph. For the last 4 years we have been trying to
get XiphQT added to the list of QuickTime components on Apple's
external components webpage at
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/resources/components.html . We have
seen proprietary codecs added one after the other but Xiph codecs
continuously being ignored even though we requested addition multiple
times and through different people. I'm sorry to say but that has
indeed caused a feeling of being rejected on purpose. We would love to
see this situation rectified.

Regards,
Silvia.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Eric Carlson<eric.carlson at apple.com> wrote:
> Silvia -
>
> On Jun 13, 2009, at 7:02 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> As for Safari and any other software on the Mac that is using the
>> QuickTime framework, there is XiphQT to provide support. It's a
>> QuickTime component and therefore no different to installing a Flash
>> plugin, thus you can also count Safari as a browser that has support
>> for Ogg Theora/Vorbis, even if I'm sure people from Apple would not
>> like to see it this way.
>>
> ?Speaking of misinformation and hyperbole, what makes you say "people from
> Apple" want to hide the fact that Safari supports third party QuickTime
> codecs? We *could* have limited WebKit to only support QuickTime's built-in
> formats, but did not specifically so customers can add other formats as they
> choose.
>
> ?We have never tried to hide this, it is ridiculous to imply otherwise.
>
> eric
>
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 16:51:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:13 UTC