At 22:55 +1200 27/06/07, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On 6/27/07, Nicholas Shanks
<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 27 Jun 2007, at 09:28, Maik Merten wrote:
Browsers don't rely on the OS to decode JPEG or PNG or GIF either
In my experience that seems to be exactly what they do do-rely on the
OS to provide image decoding (as with other AV media).
I say this because changes that had occurred in the OS (such as
adding JPEG-2000 support) are immediately picked up by my browsers.
You do not know what you are talking about. Firefox does not use OS
image decoders.
likely to be slower and buggier than the free decoding
component written by the codec vendor themselves
We use official Ogg Theora libraries.
and detracts from the time available for implementing other browser changes.
No-one's suggesting reimplementing codecs. We're talking about
integrating existing codecs into the browser, and shipping them with
the browser.
I'm not sure where this discussion is going. However...
clearly a browser vendor is free to include audio and video
functionality in the browser if it wishes. However, this is
generally a little more complex than image codecs, in that container
(file) formats, synchronization of media streams, and extensibility
at the format and codec level, are ideally addressed somehow. Media
frameworks tend to do these things (libavcodec, Windows Media,
QuickTime).
In the mobile world, using resident codecs can give power-usage
advantages, in that they have sometimes been carefully optimized
(sometimes with hardware assist) by the platform developer.
Nonetheless, the browser could do this, or use a hybrid approach, or
be fixed in function for a specified environment. It's really
irrelevant to the spec. (which is what we are working on).
--
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime
