Re: ISSUE-19 html5-spec: HTML 5 specification release(s) due Feb 2008

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Terje Bless wrote:
> 
> The video codec text that included Ogg was the one voted on by the WG to 
> “adopt for further discussion”, and it's been removed without any 
> obvious consensus in the WG (and, in fact, seems to have been quite 
> controversial)[0].

Some implementors said they wouldn't follow the spec on this, which is why 
we replaced the earlier requirement (which presumed that implementors 
agreed with it) with an issue marker saying we didn't have a solution that 
all the implementors agreed to implement.


> Since some of the main issues surrounding video codecs are legal in 
> nature, and the publication of FPWD has relevant legal implications, 
> publishing now and with this change will have consequences down the 
> road.

One of our requirements be that the codec we pick will be available under 
an RF license (or available without any non-RF licensing terms), so 
actually there are ironically no legal implications with regard to the 
patent policy.


> If nothing else, it invites the inversion of the burden of proof in 
> future arguments; since the various member's legal teams will do their 
> review based on the FPWD, the onus is suddenly on the proponents of Ogg 
> to argue for its addition, rather then on the opponents to argue for its 
> removal.

There isn't really anything to argue about. Everyone agrees on our goals, 
as far as I can tell. The only problem is finding a codec that matches 
those criteria. Publication of the rest of the draft doesn't affect this.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'