●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load 500 More Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byditoa ( 952847 ) writes:
Perhaps it is a stupid question but why do the vendors have a say what goes into the spec and what doesn't? Isn't it up to them to choose to implement the spec fully or not? FFS just make it Ogg Vorbis/Theora and if Apple doesn't want to support it then Safari can just not support that part of the spec. It isn't like any of the browser are 100% complient anyway.
byhansraj ( 458504 ) writes:
Perhaps because there is no point having a standard if no one is willing to adopt it.
byditoa ( 952847 ) writes:
But Mozilla already have supported it with Firefox 3.5??
Parent
twitter
facebook
by0racle ( 667029 ) writes:
And Apple supports a different one in Safari 4. IE supports neither so the W3C might as well dictate unicorn farts since HTML5 won't be supported on most of the desktops in the world.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byscubamage ( 727538 ) writes:
Nah, unicorn farts are handled by IEEE RFC's. W3C has no control over that.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymstoykov ( 1564635 ) writes:
Safari 4 will have it as plugin (as it was pointed somewhere) and IE(I don't know which version do you refer to) has never supported any standard that I know so :) it doesn't really matters. On the other hand Firefox has much bigger share than Safari and is actually using something - my personal oppinion is that when someone starts to support this they will support firefox and others browsers(Safari) will just have to handel it . This is of course if out dear MIcrosoft doesn't put wmv in IE9 (which probabl
bybroken_chaos ( 1188549 ) writes:
The plugin you're referring to: http://www.xiph.org/quicktime/ [xiph.org]
(They finally released an update last month after two years of no activity. I think this HTML5 argument finally spurred someone into thinking "Hey, maybe we should provide (regularly updated) support on a fairly widely-used platform.".)
byIlgaz ( 86384 ) writes:
Funny you mention the 2 years of no activity. That is why I stayed away from it on workstations since we all know codecs always need "little touches" whenever Quicktime gets an update. I am sure media professionals who calls On2/AVID whenever Quicktime gets updates and some stuck in OS X 10.4.9 (not 11) didn`t even dare to touch it.
Nevertheless, it is a completely legitimate way of using Quicktime framework. It is not a "hack" or anything. It is what Apple does to support H264 itself. Saying as people gener
bybennomatic ( 691188 ) writes:
Yes! Unicorn farts! That would solve everything!!
byrdnetto ( 955205 ) writes:
Except that the EU basically forced Microsoft to be standards compliant in that antitrust hearing, so whatever W3C says for HTML5 goes. Which means for a change that the standards dictate the web, instead of the MS developer who pulled IE's version of HTML out of his ass.
●rrent threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...