> To me, it seems more like Google doesn't really want to take a position in > the matter regarding codecs and is taking the "weird" way out by using > ffmpeg. Given Google's dominance in search, which tends to bring people to > at least look at Google's products, anything Google does is examined with a > fine toothpick and commented about pretty much everywhere. So yes, anything > Google does will be taken as an example for others, regardless of the sane > way to do it. Even if Google's method is sane to them and not to others, > people will take it as otherwise. > That's fine if Google doesn't want to take a position, but this squabbling > does not help anything at all....
I think we've taken a very clear position on compliance but... > And the <video> tag will be rendered useless if no default codec is > specified. Same for <audio>. This is really a matter for the spec to handle one way or another, not Google. Chris
