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

[whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 45, Issue 16

From: bofh <goodb0fh@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:34:46 -0500
Message-ID: <6ead893e0712112034n67d10acbpe182a942bb10e048@mail.gmail.com>
On Dec 11, 2007 5:30 PM,  <whatwg-request at lists.whatwg.org> wrote:
> > The whole point of the change was to make the point that we need something
> > that will not screw you. Ogg isn't a solution, as it won't be implemented
> > by Apple and Microsoft. If we require Ogg, then what will happen is the
> > big players will support something else, then that will become the
> > de-facto standard, and you will get screwed. What we _want_ is for
> > everyone to support the same codec. We don't get that by having a
> > SHOULD-level requirement for Ogg.

And we should implement OOXML support too right, just to make
Microsoft happy?  I don't think that's the right way to do things.  As
someone who's trained as a civil engineer, we were taught there was a
right way and wrong way to do things.  The most correct way is to
follow the spec.  But this has the premise that the spec is not
screwed up.  If you give us a screwed up spec, we're doomed.

This whole issue about submarine patents is bullshit.  The reason is
this:  If such a patent exists, Apple/Nokia/Microsoft/et all would
have found it, and waved it in your face.  After all, they've had
months to go look for it.
>
> Then make it a MUST-level requirement.  There is no other solution.  If
> we give in to the big companies trying to screw us during the spec
> design, then we're surely screwed, by design.  At least, if we make the
> spec MUST-level for Theora, we can bring pressure to bear on Microsoft,
> Apple, Nokia, and whoever else by shining a spotlight on their
> non-conformance to the spec.

Exactly.  Which browsers are acid2 compliant again?  Why was that?

> Theora *is* the baseline for free and open video, full stop.  Everything
> else reasonable is encumbered (at least to my knowledge).  Assuming I'm
> right, discussion over.

For anyone to claim this is not so, they will have to pull out patents
to show why this is not so.  Otherwise, they should shut up about it.

> > Ogg is _a_ choice, which provides freedom for some but not everyone. We
> > need a codec that works for everyone.
>
> Then you might as well give up on HTML5 right now.

Exactly.  You can never please everyone.  Do the drug companies like
FDA regulations?  Hell no.  Do we need stringent standards from FDA?
Hell yes.

> spec, and I would say make it a MUST and yell loud and long at Apple,
> MS, Nokia and others when they claim conformance to HTML5 and don't
> implement it.

Exactly!

> > I think that's what everyone wants. The problem is that Ogg is not such a
> > codec -- Apple, for instance, can't implement Ogg without fear of being
> > sued.
>
> Pardon me, but the sanitized version just isn't strong enough, here.
>
> Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Exactly.  Tell Apple to show us the patents they're worried about.
They've had time to go look up those damned patents.

> > I assure you that the change was made in good faith; I (sadly) received no
> > money for the change. I really wish I had.

Your role here is extremely critical.  Surely there's someone that
you'd trust, that can do the appropriate research for you, so that you
can see if Jeff et all are speaking the truth, or if Apple/Nokia is
speaking the truth (patent, legal, etc)?


-- 
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1G-3laJJP0&feature=related
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 20:34:46 UTC

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