3 ms·
And why can't other browsers integrate an Ogg codec? It would cost them nothing. The img tag supports several formats, so why should browser developers decide w
by gorog 17y ago
And why can't other browsers integrate an Ogg codec? It would cost them nothing. The img tag supports several formats, so why should browser developers decide which video codec web companies should use? Especially if their choice is one that costs millions per year. Mozilla is right to promote the free option for us all. They should add Matroska/Dirac/Vorbis in the future, just like they support both JPEG and PNG.
- cracki 17y agowhy is codec support even a browser issue? the system is supposed to manage my codecs, and the browser is supposed to use system APIs to play any and all videos i have a codec for. i'm guessing this is because linux doesn't have a single video codec API, but everything has to explicitly link against codec libraries...
- vetinari 17y agoDesktop distributions do have single video codec API (gstreamer). But browsers are unlikely to use OS-provided libraries for anything downloaded over net, if they can avoid it. If there is a exploit found in third-party code, the browsers cannot work around it and they get the blame (remember the Firefox-on-Windows shell exploit?).