- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 21:23:38 -0800
- To: Jim Jewett <jimjjewett@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, dbaron@dbaron.org
On Dec 11, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Jim Jewett wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > >> I think there are some objective criteria that can help >> determine the scope of risk ... > >> 3) Is the codec old enough that any essential patents >> must be expired? > > [The only video Yes answer was for H.261. There were no audio Yes > answers, but MP3 might be before the specification is final.] The answers I posted are for sample purposes, I think the responsible thing would be to evaluate more codecs first. However I don't think those are particularly bad choices. The main downside is that H.261 is not as good as more state-of-the-art codecs. I believe the same is true of Ogg Theora, however, though perhaps to a lesser extent. MP3 is not as good as AAC or Vorbis but it's good enough, and remains the most popular audio format. > So why not just use these two as the baseline, at least until the > lawyers clear something newer? That way there is at least a fallback > which is interoperable. > > Are the codecs themselves so bulky that including an extra -- even one > without patents -- is unacceptable? Or is there a fear that this will > become the normal case instead of the fallback, even if something > better is available? I don't know of any party specifically objecting to these two codecs as possibilities. Besides codecs we'd also need to suggest a baseline container format. However, I think it would be best to give the W3C some time to evaluate the possibilities independently before putting something in the spec. For example, they have the ability to actually attempt something like a patent search, which is a problem for large corporations (having seen a patent can be the basis for a "willful infringement" claim in a patent lawsuit, which triples the damages). Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 05:23:51 UTC