Re: Request for clarification on HTML 5 publication status (ISSUE-19)

Hi Mikko,

On Nov 30, 2007, at 6:05 AM, mikko.honkala@nokia.com wrote:

>
> Hello group,
>
> we see benefit to publish a first WD of the HTML5 spec. To avoid any
> patent issues we request deletion of the following clause from the  
> spec
> before it is published. We support publication under the condition  
> this
> change is made.

Thanks for clarifying.

>> "User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as
>> well as the Ogg container format." in 3.14.7.1.
>
> We request the W3C to explore the codec situation in its December
> workshop, and to work towards a resolution with its membership
> thereafter, with subsequent versions of the HTML5 WD updated according
> to the result. For a more elaborated story, please read the upcoming
> Nokia position paper for the W3C video workshop at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/papers.html
>
> We believe the canvas element and its JavaScript interface should be
> considered in scope of the HTML5 WG. We request the WG to asses and  
> draw
> attention to performance issues with JavaScript and graphics  
> operations
> on embedded devices.
>
> To be extra clear here: we support publication of HTML5 WD, including
> the canvas, audio, and video elements, but not the SHOULD clause for  
> the
> baseline codec until proper patent assessment has been made.

Since a SHOULD requirement is optional, I don't think it necessarily  
raises critical patent concerns. For example, Apple's experimental  
implementation of <video> does not support Ogg Theora.

That being said, I think it is important for the W3C to explore this  
issue. And Apple would be in favor of removing the SHOULD as well (we  
think it is unhelpful to say implementations "SHOULD" do something  
that some of us "CAN'T"), but we do not consider it a showstopper  
requirement.

Regards,
Maciej

Received on Saturday, 1 December 2007 01:49:18 UTC