Specifying codecs for the web
Posted Dec 13, 2007 10:28 UTC (Thu) by ekj
Parent article: Specifying codecs for the web
Why can't we get audio and video-tags that work similar to the existing img tag then ?
The img tag does not specify the encoding of the src= referenced image, it just gives the adress. The encoding is specified by the mime-type of that image, and indeed the type of image can be auto-negotiated on the basis of the web-browsers accept: header.
Sure, it's an annoyance that, for example, png-support in some browesers is flaky, and it'd be nice if there was something besides gif/jpg that you could be certain would be supported across the board, but there isn't and somehow we still manage.
Due to popularity, I'm fairly certain all major browsers would support wav and mp3, ogg and flac would be nice, but essentially, if a browser-vendor says: "we won't do that", then they won't -do- that, wishful thinking notwithstanding.
Having it in the standard wouldn't nessecarily help much in practice. There are LOTS of stuff that are in the standards, and has been for a long time, but where you -still- can't use it and trust that it works universally, because a major browser does not infact implement it. There's not many websites actually using fig for anything ....
to post comments)