After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4G2Jk.48009$rD2.6395@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> --- "Although HTML 5 does not officially include Ogg Vorbis and Theora as
>>> baseline codecs for the new VIDEO and AUDIO tags, Mozilla has adopted
>>> them
>>> for its own implementation."
>>>
>>> I'd be willing to wager good money that if Microsoft added non-standard
>>> HTML
>>> tags for "its own implementation" that several "advocates" would be
>>> screaming how it's a plot to subvert internet standards.
>>
>> And rightly so. You see, Firefox runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, and many
>> other UNIXen.
>
> Sounds like you're trying to make the case that the end justifies the means.
> Cross platform or not, it's still a non-standard HTML tag specific only to
> their browser.
Huh? It's on the books, and Microsoft is in on the discussion,
apparently.
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#video
4.8.7.1 Video and audio codecs for video elements
User agents may support any video and audio codecs and container
formats.
http://www.w3.org/QA/2007/12/when_will_html_5_support_soone.html
It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could
support the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that
satisfy all the current players: we need a codec
* that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor
licensing,
* that is compatible with the open source development model,
* that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and
* that is not an additional submarine patent risk for
large companies.
There are patent issues with H.264. VC-1 is also at issue.
Ogg seems to be much less encumbered, except by politics.
--
Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
-- Shakespeare
|
|
