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

[whatwg] Codecs for <audio> and <video>

From: Peter Kasting <pkasting@google.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:39:05 -0700
Message-ID: <d62cf1d10906301239m4e6124abp256609333c93879e@mail.gmail.com>
There is no other reason to put a codec in the spec -- the primary reason to
spec a behavior (to document vendor consensus) does not apply.  "Some
vendors agreed, and some objected violently" is not "consensus".

PK

On Jun 30, 2009 12:31 PM, "Jeff McAdams" <jeffm at iglou.com> wrote:

Peter Kasting wrote: > > As a contributor to multiple browsers, I think it's
important to note the d...
I don't know that anyone has suggested putting it in the spec *only* to
apply pressure to vendors.  Certainly that is an added "bonus" (I'll put
that in quotes because not everyone will consider that a positive thing),
and certainly doing so will achieve the goal of applying pressure.  But I
agree that putting it in the spec to *only* apply pressure to vendors is not
reasonable, but considering it as an additional reason to put it in the
spec, is quite reasonable.

-- Jeff McAdams jeffm at iglou.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20090630/ad4632c7/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 12:39:05 UTC

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