W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > December 2007

Re: ISSUE-24 (ogg-delete): Request to delete "should support Ogg" clause before publishing FPWD [HTML 5 spec]

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 04:40:09 -0800
Cc: HTML Issue Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8ADC41B6-9A99-43E1-BE5E-8BEB1FF30531@apple.com>
To: Olivier GENDRIN <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>


On Dec 1, 2007, at 12:31 AM, Olivier GENDRIN wrote:

>
> On Dec 1, 2007 3:25 AM, HTML Issue Tracking Issue Tracker
> <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> ISSUE-24 (ogg-delete): Request to delete "should support Ogg"  
>> clause before publishing FPWD [HTML 5 spec]
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/
>>
>> Raised by: Michael(tm) Smith
>> On product: HTML 5 spec
>>
>> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:05:30 +0200
>> From: mikko.honkala@nokia.com
>> To: connolly@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication  
>> status  (ISSUE-19)
>>
>> we see benefit to publish a first WD of the HTML5 spec. To avoid any
>> patent issues we request deletion of the following clause from the  
>> spec
>> before it is published. We support publication under the condition  
>> this
>> change is made.
>>
>>> "User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio,  
>>> as
>>> well as the Ogg container format." in 3.14.7.1.
>
> Couldn't we replace that sentence by a more general one, speaking
> about 'at least one patent-free format' ?

I think the general desire for a suitable codec would better be  
recorded in the spec as an open issue than a SHOULD-level conformance  
requirement.

What we'd like is for known patents to be licensed royalty-free for  
use with the format or expired; that's as good as having no patents at  
all.

Also, it's pretty hard to prove something is patent-free, other than  
waiting 20 years after it became public knowledge, at which point any  
possible patents must have expired. Part of the concern with Ogg  
Theora is that there's possible doubt that the known patents (which  
are licensed royalty-free) are the only relevant ones.

Nokia's position paper for the upcoming Video on the Web W3C Workshop  
discusses what kind of video codecs can have this kind of confidence: <http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf 
 >. Specifically, they mention a possible requirement that "There is  
only a manageable risk in implementing the specification.  In  
practice, we prefer specifications that have been developed in a  
collaborative manner under an IPR policy with disclsore requirements.   
Examples include specifications developed by the ITU-T, ISO/IEC, or  
the IETF." With codecs developed through an open standards process  
with IPR disclosure, it's possible to have greater confidence that the  
key applicable patents are known.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2007 12:40:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:51 UTC