On Tue, 14 Jul 2009, Mike Shaver wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Peter Kastingpkast...@google.com wrote:
It makes sense if you think about it -- whether YouTube sends videos encoded
as H.264 is irrelevant to what the _baseline_ codec for video needs to be,
it is only relevant as
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Ian Hicksoni...@hixie.ch wrote:
We've narrowed codecs down to two. The spec could say that UA which
supports video MUST implement at least one of Theora or H.264. All
vendors can comply with that, and that's better than not specifying any
codecs at all (e.g.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Mike Shaver mike.sha...@gmail.com wrote:
which led me to believe that YouTube's opinion was part of the
relevant-vendor positions which led to the choice to not specify a
codec. If it's not relevant, then its inclusion was certainly quite
confusing
I am
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Peter Kastingpkast...@google.com wrote:
It makes sense if you think about it -- whether YouTube sends videos encoded
as H.264 is irrelevant to what the _baseline_ codec for video needs to be,
it is only relevant as additional info for vendors deciding whether to
I'm arguing that it does matter what's in the spec, insofar that it
should
match what implementations do.
Can we agree to disagree?
We've narrowed codecs down to two. The spec could say that UA which
supports video MUST implement at least one of Theora or H.264. All
vendors can comply
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Kornelkor...@geekhood.net wrote:
Similarly, authors publishing video MUST put at least one source in Theora
or H.264
This isn't future-proof. It's also not reasonable if you happen to
know that all of your clients' browsers support some third format
(e.g. on an
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Kornel wrote:
I'm arguing that it does matter what's in the spec, insofar that it
should match what implementations do.
Can we agree to disagree?
I'm not trying to convince you; I'm just explaining why the spec doesn't
require Theora support right now.
We've
