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

[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:56:19 +0100
Message-ID: <1197503779.7016.131.camel@a1dmin.vola.spe.com.pl>

Dnia 12-12-2007, ?r o godzinie 13:12 -0600, David Hyatt pisze:
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> 
> > David Hyatt wrote:
> >
> >> 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.  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.  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.
> >
> > Openness is a prerequisite. Technical adequacy is a prerequisite.  
> > The technically best solution is not a prerequisite. In case it  
> > isn't obvious yet, an open, adequate format is preferred over a  
> > better proprietary one.
> >
> 
> I don't think that is obvious at all, especially when the <video>  
> tag's chief competition, Flash, is using the technically superior  
> solution.  Why would authors switch away from Flash if <video> doesn't  
> offer any technically compelling reason to switch?

For example, because Flash is unavailable or is available in a way that
makes it inefficient with respect to open-source engines that can be
recompiled and optimised for a particular platform.

Chris
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 15:56:19 UTC

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