- From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:15:48 -0700
As a contributor to multiple browsers, I think it's important to note the distinctions between cases like Acid3 (where IIRC all tests were supposed to test specs that had been published with no dispute for 5 years), much of HTML5 (where items not yet implemented generally have agreement-on-principle from various vendors) and this issue, where vendors have publicly refused to implement particular cases. Particular specs in the first two cases represent vendor consensus, and when vendors discover problems during implementation the specs are changed. This is not a case where vendor consensus is currently possible (despite the apparently naive beliefs on the part of some who think the vendors are merely ignorant and need education on the benefits of codec x or y), and "just put it in the spec to apply pressure" is not a reasonable response. PK On Jun 30, 2009 2:17 AM, "Sam Kuper" <sam.kuper at uclmail.net> wrote: 2009/6/30 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com> > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > I considered requiring Og... Right. Waiting for all vendors to support the specified codec would be like waiting for them all to be Acid3 compliant. Better to specify how browsers should behave (especially if it's how most of them will behave), and let the stragglers pick up the slack in their own time under consumer pressure. Sam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090630/1ae06ec7/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 12:15:48 UTC