Re: Google and MPEG LA Announce Agreement Covering VP8 Video Format

Hi Sam,

I personally would think it easiest to just add it to HTML5.1, which allows
for a longer discussion timeframe. Since Chrome, Firefox and Opera support
VP8 interoperably and VP8 meets the W3C RF requirements, it seems like the
exit criteria are already met.

However, we may have an interesting case here that doesn't fall into the
current exit criteria: if we have two major browsers state that they will
not implement a feature now or ever, the feature can't really become
standard even if the current exit criteria are met. The goodwill to make it
interoperable in the future is missing.

This was the case here with IE and Safari refusing to implement VP8 support
- and Opera and Mozilla refusing to implement H.264. H.264 will never meet
the RF requirements of the W3C, so it can't be under discussion as a
baseline codec. Arguments against VP8 mostly claimed IP uncertainty. It is
the hope that this news can change these positions - at least for HTML5.1.

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote:

> On 03/08/2013 05:10 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>>
>>     On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Steve Faulkner
>>     <faulkner.steve@gmail.com <mailto:faulkner.steve@gmail.**com<faulkner.steve@gmail.com>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>         Does this mean we should revisit the requirement for a
>>         supported video format in HTML?
>>
>>         http://www.businesswire.com/**news/home/20130307006192/en/**
>> Google-MPEG-LA-Announce-**Agreement-Covering-VP8<http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130307006192/en/Google-MPEG-LA-Announce-Agreement-Covering-VP8>
>>
>> I support a move towards specifying VP8 as the baseline video codec for
>> HTML.
>>
>
> Just so we are clear, what you are proposing is doing this in which
> version of HTML?
>
> Prior history on this:
>
> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/**tracker/issues/7<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/7>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-html/2009Dec/**0286.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Dec/0286.html>
>
> I don't believe that this issue needs to be reopened if you are talking
> about 5.1, but would be if we are talking about 5.0.
>
> Either way (5.0 or 5.1), I would suggest informally evaluating whether or
> not such a change could conceivably meet the defined exit criteria[1] in
> the time frame specified before proceeding.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/**decision-policy/public-**
> permissive-exit-criteria.html<http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/public-permissive-exit-criteria.html>
>
>
>
>
>