If <video> supports fallback though, that 20% is enough to bootstrap and
build support, especially as we all hope that that 20% continues to grow.
However, I do agree that the codec discussion should be tabled and that
we should get back to the spec discussion... I've been ignoring much of
the <video> discussion because it's mostly been off in the codec weeds.
I'll see if I can find some time to read over the proposals this
weekend and give some constructive comments.
- Vlad
David Hyatt wrote:
I agree with this. The tag isn't worth much to the Web if it's not
interoperable among *all* Web browsers. That includes, unfortunately,
Internet Explorer. That is why I think trying to pick a baseline format
in the WhatWG is premature. Until the <video> element moves to the HTML
WG and we find out what Microsoft's opinion is on this subject, I'm not
really sure what the point is of this codec debate. Even if the browser
vendors of the WhatWG all agreed to support Theora tomorrow, Mozilla +
Opera + Safari constitute only 20% of total browser market share.
That percentage is not even remotely compelling enough for content
authors to want to use the <video> element over proprietary alternatives
like Flash.
dave
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
seems On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:50 PM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
Seriously, though, I think this group is concerned that having a
polished <video> interface isn't worth much in terms of
interoperability unless there is a baseline format.
