- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:23:43 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, L. David Baron wrote: > > The text you replaced the requirements with [1] includes the > requirement that the codec: > > # is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies > > Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a > loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the > choice of codec for any reason it chooses, potentially including not > wanting the <video> element to succeed in creating an open standard > for video on the Web? Neither, but that doesn't really matter. With any feature in the spec, implementors have veto choice. All it takes is for an implementor that is otherwise intending to implement the bulk of the specification to say "we won't implement this bit" for that bit to be vetoed. The idea is to get full interop, if someone won't implement a part of it, we won't get interop. (If an implementor refuses to implement the bulk of the specification, of course, their credibility starts taking a hit, and it becomes worth just calling the implementor's bluff.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 02:23:56 UTC