W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Formal Objection to One vendor, One Veto

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:54:16 +0200
Message-ID: <4A55BE48.7000301@gmx.de>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
CC: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, www-archive@w3.org, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Wilson <Chris.Wilson@microsoft.com>
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
 > ...

Lachy; good points, but it seems to me that you're missing the 
underlying point.

You say:

> It's also worth nothing that the patent concerns expressed by Apple are also shared by Microsoft [1].  So if we were to include a requirement for Theora and Vorbis in the spec, when we attempt to move to Last Call, the likely result would be that we would get formal objections from both Apple and Microsoft, at which point would have to go through this whole debate again and probably end up right back where we are now. 

The spec currently contains lots of stuff for which we keep hearing: "If 
we can't reach consensus or implementors reject it, it can be removed 
later on". One concern is that the decision what to do when (remove it 
pro-actively, as with the video codec discussion, or leave it in, as for 
instance, "microdata", or, gasp, a/@ping) seems to be somewhat arbitrary.

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 9 July 2009 09:55:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:18:25 GMT