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

[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

From: Stijn Peeters <stijn.p@hccnet.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:22:20 +0100
Message-ID: <006901c83e54$5c435270$14c9f750$@p@hccnet.nl>
Quoting Ian, "[as a codec that everyone will implement] Theora is not an
option, since we have clear statements from multiple vendors that they will
not implement Theora.". So, in your wording, multiple vendors will choose
not to develop one. Writing a spec while knowing beforehand that multiple
vendors will not implement it conformingly still sounds like a bad idea to
me :)

Regards,

Stijn
 
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] Namens Jeff McAdams
Verzonden: vrijdag 14 december 2007 14:13
CC: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
Onderwerp: Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

Stijn Peeters wrote:
> Changing the SHOULD to MUST means that a lot of browser
> vendors would not be able to develop a conforming implementation.

Again, this needs to be called out as being patently untrue.

They might *choose* not to develop a conforming implemention, but they
certainly are *able* to.
-- 
Jeff McAdams
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                       -- Benjamin Franklin
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 05:22:20 UTC

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