W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > December 2007

[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:51:15 -0600
Message-ID: <8716A9D3-BEEE-4B3B-8C89-01F775C99D0A@apple.com>
SHOULD is toothless.  It carries absolutely no weight.  I don't think  
it's appropriate for such weak language to be in the HTML5 spec.  It  
should either be a MUST (which is inappropriate at this juncture for  
reasons that Dave Singer. Ian Hickson and myself have posted about in  
previous messages) or just not be mentioned at all.

dave
(hyatt at apple.com)

On Dec 11, 2007, at 5:48 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:

>> Maybe you should take some time to read the previous discussions of
>> this issue before making such inflammatory accusations.
>
> What accusation, David?  That Apple would prefer people not use Ogg  
> to author
> Web content, for reasons which are purely monetary in nature?  I  
> only wrapped
> it in humor!
>
>>
>> Fear of submarine patents is only one reason Apple is not interested
>> in Theora.  There are several other reasons.  H.264 is a technically
>> superior solution to Theora.
>
> This is unarguably TRUE.
>
>> Ignoring IP issues, there would be no
>> reason to pick Theora over H.264.  Everyone wants an open freely
>> implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora should
>> automatically be that codec.
>
> Agreed.  That's also why the standard didn't say MUST.  It said  
> SHOULD.
>
>> About the only argument I've heard in
>> favor of Theora is that "it's open", but that is an argument based
>> purely on IP and not on technical merits.
>
> However, I can make a pretty compelling case showing that Vorbis is  
> at least
> on par in performance with AAC.  So at least for Vorbis, it's not just
> freedom but actual results.
>
>> If you consider mobile devices that want to browse the Web, then
>> depending on the constraints of the device, a hardware solution may  
>> be
>> required to view video with any kind of reasonable performance.  A
>> mandate of Theora is effectively dictating to those mobile vendors
>> that they have to create custom hardware that can play back Theora
>> video.  Given that such devices may already need a hardware solution
>> for existing video like H.264, it seems unreasonable for HTML5 to
>> mandate what hardware a vendor has to develop just to browse Web  
>> video
>> on a mobile device.
>
> You are writing a very lengthy paragraph founded on a lie.  Where  
> did the
> standard mandate that Theora be required for conformance?  Because I  
> read
> SHOULD, not MUST.  And everyone's gonna be *years* until they're up to
> MUST-level conformance to be concerned about the cost of hardware  
> (Moore
> helps here).
>
>> Or put another way, imagine that GIF was an open format but PNG was  
>> IP-
>> encumbered.  Would you really want to limit the Web to displaying  
>> only
>> GIFs just because it was the only open image format available?
>
> What a way to build a strawman!  Who or where says that the Web is  
> going to be
> limited to Theora?  It says SHOULD, man, SHOULD.  You're free to use  
> H.264 if
> you want, and I'm pretty sure that your devices will still sell like  
> crack on
> the street.
>
>> Technical arguments are relevant here, so take some time to consider
>> them before accusing people of having shady ulterior motives.
>
> In fact, I honestly wish there were only technical arguments to be  
> made.  This
> discussion would be much, much simpler.
>
>>
>> dave
>> (hyatt at apple.com)
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> 	Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o at rudd-o.com>
> 	Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
> 	GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
>
> You will not be elected to public office this year.
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 15:51:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:38 UTC