>2. Converting video from one format to another can be automated. Converting a site designed for IE6 to work on other browsers cannot. Sure it can. You run it

>2. Converting video from one format to another can be automated. Converting a site designed for IE6 to work on other browsers cannot. Sure it can. You run it through IE6 and print to an image format of your choice. >1. We're talking about the entire Web vs the narrow context of Web-based videol so it's a question of scope; and Yes, and thanks to the narrower scope it's not as big a deal to convert between video formats, but there's still going to be a marked loss of quality. >So not only aren't the problems analogous but the author is engaging in scaremongering to try and equate H.264 with the (stipulated) horrors of IE6. Viewing a website designed specifically for IE6 is likely to cause similar loss of fidelity to viewing a video transcoded from VP8 to H.264, or vice versa. >Let's not split hairs. Browser != data format. The data format in question is the HTML accepted by IE6. That data format actually works fairly well with modern web browsers, much like VP8 decoders will likely be bundled with H.264 encoders once the patents run out and H.264 can properly be called an open standard.