<op.tpjd9bgg5rel5w@quark>
Current votes: None.
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:00:53 +0100, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > I think that specification of video codec doesn't belong to HTML > specification. Codecs and media formats are changing much more rapidly > then surrounding markup languages. I agree to a certain extent in what you write. However, I think that =20 specifying a mandatory baseline codec is so valuable that it will be more= =20 gained than lost from doing it. It will enable authors to use one baselin= e =20 format in all of their videos without thinking about browser support. Onl= y =20 if they choose another codec will they have to test for support in =20 browsers, because its support isn't required by the HTML specification. > But for maintaining interoperability it is necessary to define some > basic set of widely recognized formats. I would support separate W3C > effort to define "Web profile" which would say something like: "Your We= b > should be made only of HTML X.Y, CSS 2.1, GIF, PNG, JPEG, MP3 and Theor= a > files if you want to be it accessible to the largest audience." If such an initiative was supported by the four major browser vendors, I = =20 would support it wholehartedly too. However, at this point in time, no =20 such intiative exists and I am a bit doubtful of how it would be supporte= d =20 by the browser vendors. --=20 Asbj=F8rn Ulsberg -=3D|=3D- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/ =ABHe's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away=BB