| |||||||||||||
Specifying codecs for the webSpecifying codecs for the webPosted Dec 13, 2007 15:30 UTC (Thu) by vmole (guest, #111)In reply to: Specifying codecs for the web by ekj Parent article: Specifying codecs for the web The whole point of this is to establish baseline support that would be required for HTML5 compliance, so that a provider could rely on the presence of certain codecs, just as they can rely on jpg and gif being displayed correctly.
(Log in to post comments)
Specifying codecs for the web Posted Dec 13, 2007 17:28 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] But none of the major vendors are likely to obtain HTML5 compliance, unless its by watering down the standard to contain mostly SHOULDs that they can decide not to implement. HTML is a very qualified success. Tag soup has won out for the most part. Things have improved in the last ten years, but not very quickly. Can you think of a web browser people use that's HTML 4 compliant? Not "nearly" or "sort-of" or "the important bits" but the HTML 4 standard as published ? Last time I looked Mozilla.org still had bugs open against rarely used HTML features dating back to the start of the project in the 1990s. I'm not completely sure I understand how this happened, but one thing that definitely had an effect was the encouragement to "edit in Notepad" without tools that could verify the resulting document meant anything, let alone what was intended by the author. Modern tools have much reduced this tendency (most people now create content in Wikis or blogs where they can type an ampersand without making the site fail validation).
|
|||||||||||||