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

Video codec requirements changed

From: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:49:13 -0500
Message-ID: <fb6fbf560712112049v714b0addg916e99eebbb183d8@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org
Cc: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, dbaron@dbaron.org

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> I think there are some objective criteria that can help
> determine the scope of risk ...

> 3) Is the codec old enough that any essential patents
> must be expired?

[The only video Yes answer was for H.261.  There were no audio Yes
answers, but MP3 might be before the specification is final.]

So why not just use these two as the baseline, at least until the
lawyers clear something newer?  That way there is at least a fallback
which is interoperable.

Are the codecs themselves so bulky that including an extra -- even one
without patents -- is unacceptable?  Or is there a fear that this will
become the normal case instead of the fallback, even if something
better is available?

-jJ
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 04:49:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:11 GMT