3 ms·
> I'm not sure if Opus was proposed as mandatory for the audio tag (I think it should). https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18932 https://www.w3.org
by derf_ 12y ago
> I'm not sure if Opus was proposed as mandatory for the audio tag (I think it should).
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18932 https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18932
It was CLOSED WONTFIX.
- shmerl 12y ago> Status: Rejected Change Description: No spec change. Rationale: See Ian and Adrian's rationale in comment 2 and comment 3. > #2: Working groups can't force a browser to implement something. Are all the browser vendors willing to implement it? That's what matters. > #3 Microsoft doesn't believe HTML5 needs to specify a mandatory to implement codec. The market is quite capable of ensuring that popular formats are supported on the web. Opus did not exist when ISSUE-7 was closed. Who knows what formats might be more popular than this by the time HTML5 gets to Recommendation, or after that. It's also not clear that there will be widespread adoption of Opus for the purposes that <audio> is currently used. This does not mean Microsoft is for or against supporting Opus with <audio>, just that the spec doesn't need to say anything on this. Rationale is invalid, since in other instances standard is enforcing something (same WebRTC). And of course MS was brought as the main antagonist. Some apparently just hate when the Web has interoperability.
- derf_ 12y agoWell, there are other ways to tell them that this interoperability is important: https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-platform/suggestions/6513488-ogg-vorbis-and-opus-audio-formats-support-firefox https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-... (no registration required to vote).
- shmerl 12y agoThanks for the link!