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

[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

From: Shannon <shannon@arc.net.au>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:03:47 +1100
Message-ID: <47627123.6010309@arc.net.au>

> Again, a false presumption.  This was discussed in the context of the 
> HTML WG at the W3C.  Those doors are not closed.

Really? Does that mean I can claim a seat on the board? Where is this discussion about a public standard made public if 
not here? Please provide a link to these open discussions and I'll concede your point (and join - it is public, and free 
right?)


> Look, I didn't request the change.  I was OK with leaving a 
> placeholder 'should' while we worked on a 'must'.  Nokia preferred 
> that the spec. indicated truthfully that work was continuing.  This 
> is hardly earth-shattering.

I'm glad you didn't (and I never claimed you did) but the fact remains that Nokia did. Nokia requested, Nokia got, and 
you are defending them. When did you change your mind?

I (and many others) make a reasonable request and get stonewalled. I'd like to think we are working towards the same 
goal and that we have different ways of doing it. Still, you have yet to reveal the magic codec that will make this go 
away. And yes, corporate self-interest is not earth-shattering, or relevant to a public specification when workarounds 
exist.


> You lost me.  I see no 'holding to ransom', 'caving in', or anything.

Then you haven't been reading Ian's previous posts. I am certain the subtext of his previous remarks was that HTML5 will 
stall if we didn't remove the OGG recommendation. I'm certain he mentioned 'major companies' being the reason for the 
change. Surely saying you won't adopt a standard because you disagree with an optional part is more disruptive than my 
questions? Besides, I really think you are too clever to misunderstand my claim.


> HTML is a public standard, and at some point we will be asked to vote 
> on it.  We don't need a vote on this issue, now.  We need work done. 
> We don't need flames, either.

I ask for the text to be reverted based on what appears to be public opinion and common sense. An educated opinion based 
on a lifetimes work. My questions are inflammatory only because the reason for asking them is. I believe the OGG 
recommendation IS the way forward and I believe I speak for others as well as myself. I have never made this personal or 
'flaming' other than to question a poor decision by a minority interest. I am not using analogies about family members 
to make my points. My arguments, as always are logical and supportive of unencumbered standards. I don't think the 
current draft helps that and I don't think a better option than OGG is on the table (including saying that). I'm sorry 
this ended up on /. but again I had nothing to do with it - or the misinformation about OGG. If I wanted a flamewar I'd 
go to the Starcraft forums. This is serious and I am acting as calm as can be expected.

Also I am a programmer. I have no objection in doing WORK to bring OGG up to a standard Nokia would accept - however 
let's be clear here - they wouldn't accept it anyway because they want H.264.


> Then I am clearly wasting my time.  Your understanding, approach and 
> attitude all leave a great deal to be desired.

Oh please. I understand Apple has a lot at stake in the video format wars. If you are wasting your time then I suppose 
that depends on why you are here. I have never lied about my motivation for requesting the draft to be reverted.


> MPEG-LA has said *absolutely nothing*.

No they wouldn't. Fortunately I can read between the lines. Nokia is their frontman.


> Ask Nokia;  they asked for the text to reflect reality.  You prefer 
> it reflect a false conclusion.  *There is NO CONCLUSION YET*. You 
> seem quite unable to grasp this simple fact.

I am asking FOR a suggestion in the text to promote a public benefit. One that was there before Nokia's self-serving 
complaint.

'Reality' is currently 'defacto' standards. defacto standards that benefit a small group of companies. This is a 
standards organisation designed to prevent that. I'm asking this organization to take a stand. That is the way forward.


> Wonderful.  I wish your understanding matched your altruism.

It does. Again you insult my intelligence, while accusing me of 'flaming'. What is to misunderstand? The more poignant 
the questions, the more upset you get. That's not my fault. There is no 'misunderstanding'. This is clearly a fight over 
free vs. closed formats and your 'wait and see' attitude only benefits the non-free standards of the incumbents. That's 
not an outcome I can accept. You have a lot of power here, you should be attacking Nokia's claims, not mine.

If a better option appears in the future we will be both be happy, however your optimism is not 'reality' or helpful. My 
objection to the current text is that it looks like an orchestrated stalling tactic. It is not a neutral, wise or 
logical position. If you want the spec to reflect current reality then just rebadge the HTML4 spec. Going forwards means 
making changes, not stating the obvious or maintaining the status quo based on Nokia's whims.

Shannon
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 04:03:47 UTC

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