Linked by Moochman on Mon 10th May 2010 22:54 UTC
Permalink for comment 423706
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-04-18
Wasn't the need for certain codecs taken out of the specification deliberately because there was no point in putting things into the spec which were not true in the real world. I'm sure I read something like that from the editor of the spec (Ian?) a few months ago.
Just so you know, there was never any mention on how images should be encoded on the web but in the end that all sorted itself out eventually.
I don't agree with the H.264 codec being in use but at the same time putting OGG Theora in the spec will make no deference because the vendors who want H.264 will just ignore that bit of the spec - simple as that.