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

[whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

From: Manuel Amador <rudd-o@rudd-o.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:11:08 -0500
Message-ID: <200712120011.08784.rudd-o@rudd-o.com>
I'd rephrase it as

# Has had traction, time and exposure in the market, enough so patent threats 
should have arisen already.

Which is basically the same meaning, and includes Ogg Vorbis technology.  
Because if America Online (Winamp) is not a big company, then I don't know 
the meaning of the word "big".

I'd also not use a hash to denote a bullet point ;-).

El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves escribi?:
> On 12/11/07, L. David Baron <dbaron at dbaron.org> wrote:
> > # is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies
> >
> > Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a
> > loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the
> > choice of codec for any reason it chooses, potentially including not
> > wanting the <video> element to succeed in creating an open standard
> > for video on the Web?
>
> I agree as well that that sentence is in need of better wording as to
> avoid what may be an ambiguous statement.
>
> -Ivo



-- 

	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/

Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20071212/af198442/attachment.pgp>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 21:11:08 UTC

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