Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 76.247.104.84 - "→What's so special about OGG?: new section" |
|||
Line 6:
What other free (libre) media format has been proposed for inclusion in a W3C markup specification? PNG? SVG? TXT? RSS? WTF? None? It's not even '''required''' that useragents support or display images of any format at all - what's so special about OGG that it gets special attention from W3C? This isn't intended to be argumentative, I sincerely want to know what's behind this. It seems so contrary to the way any other peripheral media is considered in relation to Web markup language specifications and development. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.247.104.84|76.247.104.84]] ([[User talk:76.247.104.84|talk]]) 04:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The special part of ogg is that this format have no patents and everybody/every vendor can implement this format. The idea behind the video tag is that every browser should be able to handle the video without install an extra plugin - and on some os the plugins are not avaible, i.e. dos or old windows versions(and many other oses)!<small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">[[User talk:Mabdul|mabdul]]</font></small> 20:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
| |||