Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

At 21:59  +0000 7/01/08, David Gerard wrote:
>On 07/01/2008, Dave Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:
>>  At 19:29  +0100 7/01/08, Federico Bianco Prevot wrote:
>
>>  >Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
>>  >http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
>
>>  I get the impression that this is not an openly-specified codec,
>>  which I rather think is a problem.  That is, there is neither a
>>  publicly available spec. nor publicly-available source, which means
>>  that it is controlled by one company.
>>  Am I misreading the situation?
>
>
>I have a suggestion:
>
>"Nokia, Apple: you want H.264, you free H.264. Make it irrevocably
>perpetually royalty-free, it goes in. Do that with any other codec
>that's technically better than Ogg Theora, it goes in. You can't do
>that, we name Ogg Theora as a SHOULD. OK with you?"
>
>Anyone see anything unacceptable in that approach? Find someone from
>Apple and Nokia who can actually say "Yes" or "No" to this, perhaps
>the fellow from Nokia who wrote that darling little paper claiming Ogg
>was too proprietary. You're from Apple, you'd know who can say "yes"
>or "no" to this. (I realise you've already stated Apple is okay with a
>"SHOULD" for Ogg, perhaps you can explain Apple's earlier objections
>without appearing to contradict that.)

No, I am sorry, we've already been through this entire discussion 
twice, and I simply refer you to previous answers.  Thanks.
-- 
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime

Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 22:50:33 UTC