On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 4:20 AM, Den.Molib <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm afraid that if using a subset of a bigger, patented, standard. > Some browsers will include the full codec. Web authors see their videos > reproduce correctly, and put them in the web thinking they're 'standard', > while the user agents including only the license-free version won't be > able to view them. > Thus de facto requiring the full support for the web, in what could be > considered a variant of 'embrace and extend' issues, even if not > intentional.
This is why mozilla have chosen not to include h.264 support in Firefox 3.5 where we're adding support for the <video> element. I think it's unfortunate that google didn't make the same decision. / Jonas
