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

[whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

From: alex <mail@nabu.be>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:11:10 +0100
Message-ID: <475F979E.6080604@nabu.be>
> We have to take into accounts the needs of everyone. This includes large 
> companies. If large companies will only accept codecs that they've already 
> implemented, then that may have to be one of the criteria.

This conflicts with:

> Whatever solution we find will be one that is royalty free and open. That 
> is not in any doubt.

You can't have it both ways. 

> If the text moves to requiring a non-free codec, then you will have been 
> screwed, and then you should raise almightly hell. However, no such 
> decision has been made (and no such decision will ever be made, at least 
> not while I'm involved).

Pfew, can we get a signed copy of that? :P

> * We could convince the MPEG-LA group to provide a royalty free license 
>   for one of their codecs, e.g. H.264 Baseline.

Very unlikely.

> * We could wait for Ogg to be used by a large fraction of the Web 
>   population, as that would provide the business reason for companies 
>   like Apple to support Ogg.

Without the standard? Highly doubtful.

> * We could use an codec old enough that all patents claimed to 
>   be essential to its implementation have expired.

Highly useless. Bandwidth & quality are still end user concerns.

The way i see it there are 3 possibilities so far:
- use ogg, possible (but negligable) risk of submarine patents
- use extremely old technology
- use another free codec which has a 100% guarantee that there are no patentholders lurking
	this does not exist (afaik)

At the end of the day, I think little choice remains except ogg.
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 00:11:10 UTC

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