On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Robert O'Callahan <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we should support it. However, there's a question of whether we > should push Google to mint a "WebM2" format instead of shoving the new > codecs into WebM.
(Metooing here.) I think we should push for WebM (.webm) referring exclusively to Matroska/VP8/Vorbis and WebM2 (.webm2) referring exclusively to Matroska/VP9/Opus. (If there's a use case for recording WebRTC calls with VP8 and Opus, Matroska/VP8/Opus could be called .webrtc.) There indeed is value in having a fixed mix of codecs per name that people see, and it's quite sad if Google is abandoning the plan to have a clear meaning for "WebM" at the first opportunity. -- Henri Sivonen [email protected] http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ _______________________________________________ dev-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-media
