W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

From: Rob Sayre <rsayre@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:45:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4A4E199E.5090602@mozilla.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>, robert@ocallahan.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html@w3.org
On 7/3/09 10:14 AM, David Singer wrote:
>  I know, this sounds like "trust me", and you don't.  I'm sorry, I am 
> doing the best I can, and I can only say I share your frustration.

I am sure you are doing the best you can. However, others are openly 
patent trolling on this list, and that undermines your position a great 
deal.

>> First of all putting theora as a baseline in the spec isn't forcing
>> anyone to do anything.
>
> How does a mandatory requirement to implement avoid force?  You baffle 
> me.

Conformance with any part of the specification is voluntary. Obviously, 
a codec that all clients and authors are satisfied with would be great. 
However, the W3C process recognizes that unanimity is not always possible.

You have done a good job avoiding the pitfalls I list below,  but I will 
list them so that others may help this discussion move forward in a 
clear manner:

1) Refrain from framing unanimity as a requirement. It is not one.

2) Be clear about who you represent. Don't claim to relay private 
feedback from "browser vendors". This is both courteous and required by 
the W3C process.

- Rob
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 14:46:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:47 UTC