W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

From: David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 21:59:58 +0000
Message-ID: <fbad4e140801071359l4205cb55g69773e4ce05d8a0c@mail.gmail.com>
To: whatwg@whatwg.org, public-html@w3.org

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.)


- d.
Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:24:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:29 UTC