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

Re: formal objection to one vendor/one vote

From: Joe D Williams <joedwil@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:17:36 -0700
Message-ID: <0DECF70E037D423FBFC76523C0CCF222@joe1446a4150a8>
To: "Shelley Powers" <shelley.just@gmail.com>, "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "HTMLWG WG" <public-html@w3.org>
> I just assumed others would be as concerned as I am, once made aware
of the one vendor/one vote.

Does it seem like a not spec-friendly area in the middle ground 
between having:

* at least two implementations of the 2-3 months ago spec wording that 
mostly work and are well on the way to proving the concept ,

and,

* one of more that do not choose to implement the old words for 
technical reason(s) (hardware accel?) that may or may not be true for 
a target time at which the spec will be adopted?

In a typical spec process those two practical implementations, 
especially if open and free, would naturally rule. Maybe they would 
prevail even if established vendors had plugin-type solutions that 
already work just fine thank you in <object> and could be somehow 
adapted for the dedicated roles of unencombered <audio> and <video>.

However, maybe this is not a typical spec process and this is a 
complicated apple cart with at least a couple of implementors of rich 
media players for the WWW such as RealPlayer and Adobe not yet in the 
comment mix that I have seen. I just looked at the latest RealPlayer 
SP and it has a click for File, New, New Web Browser that brings up an 
unbranded fairly complete browser. (From my limited tests here, 
RealPlayer doesn't do .ogg in the main player but I haven't tested 
example .ogg web pages with the rp browser window.)

Thanks and Best Regards,
Joe 
Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2009 19:18:25 UTC

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