Bad and somewhat misleading
Bad and somewhat misleading article; shame really, considering it's by the New Scientist.
I'm still very wary of HTML5 and articles such as this will not help as it gives those not in the know the impression that HTML5 is something virtually ratified and set to become the absolute de facto standard for the web, perhaps it will, but not til 2020 *yawn*
I think it wil be quite quick
I think it wil be quite quick - assuming IE9 supports most of it, and they say it will.
And Apple supposedly gung ho
And Apple supposedly gung ho for it.
But still 'quite quick'? have the two camps settled their differences then? it's that kind of utter tosh that I've come to be sick of in the Standards world.
What we are actually going to get is a messy implementation, and a new vesrion of the classic browser wars?
Two camps? I don't know that
I don't know that we'll have a single video codec. The rest of the stuff seems to be going ok.
Yes two camps , sorry tried
Yes two camps , sorry tried to find the relevant links/posts but failed.
There were two bodies both setting out to write a spec, the WHATWG, a body largely comprising of vendors, and the W3C.
There was a good deal of controversy last year over where HTML5 was going and who was steering it with Ian Hickson receiving some flak for appearing to sit on the top table of both camps and accused of being very dictatorial and intransigent.