Re: <audio> and <video> Support - formal objection to one vendor/one vote


>> "we continue to struggle"

You can see that the previous message slipped away early. Just let me 
say that I will also study current details and bring forward what I 
Thanks and Best Regards,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe D Williams" <>
To: "Sam Ruby" <>; "David Singer" 
Cc: "HTMLWG WG" <>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: formal objection to one vendor/one vote

>> "we continue
> to struggle".
> That is the correct attitude, I think. It it was easy, then a 
> solution would be clear. I will aim at producing some reasonalbe 
> information to help guide the effort. My general feeling is that we 
> should produce somehting that actually gives
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Singer" <>
> To: "Sam Ruby" <>
> Cc: "HTMLWG WG" <>
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 7:22 AM
> Subject: Re: formal objection to one vendor/one vote
>> At 10:05  -0400 13/07/09, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>David Singer wrote:
>>>>At 9:51  -0400 13/07/09, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>>David Singer wrote:
>>>>>>At 7:08  -0400 13/07/09, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>>>>>At the present time, I am not aware of anybody actually 
>>>>>>>pursuing an alternative to what Ian has proposed in terms of 
>>>>>>>required codecs. Unless I can find an owner for Issue-7, my 
>>>>>>>intent is to (eventually) close it as resolved.
>>>>>>Well, I am aware of people working on some of the issues around 
>>>>>>Ogg/Theora, I am aware of W3C staff member(s) who are looking at 
>>>>>>the situation, I have said several times I have and still am 
>>>>>>trying to pursue solutions when I can (though, I grant you, with 
>>>>>>nothing to report so far), so it's not quite true no-one is 
>>>>>>working on the problem.
>>>>>I am looking for an owner to that action item.  If you are 
>>>>>pursuing solutions, it might make sense for you to be the owner. 
>>>>>Are you volunteering?
>>>>as long as there is an open issue on this question, I don't think 
>>>>it will make much practical difference, and assigning my name 
>>>>might be taken as an implication I think I know how to solve the 
>>>>problem (which I don't, but I continue to explore).  so, I guess 
>>>>this is a 'no, let's leave an open un-assigned issue for now'.
>>>My intention is that make there be a very practical difference: 
>>>issues 7 has been open since 2007.  Recently, Ian made a 
>>>provisional decision. If nobody steps forward in the next few weeks 
>>>to take ownership of issue 7, I am fully prepared to close the 
>>>If anyone would like to see this item remain open, I ask them to 
>>>step forward at this time.  If someone does so, I will periodically 
>>>ask that person to report on status.
>> I think that it is an open issue, whether we identify it as such or 
>> not.  If you need a name to keep it formally open, then you could 
>> use mine, sure.
>> The trouble is that this issue pretty much has either nothing to 
>> report, or success;  the periodic status is likely yo be "we 
>> continue to struggle".
>> Having my name on it gives the correct impression that we're not 
>> happy either.  However, I am concerned that some may feel that I 
>> took the ownership in order to do nothing, or make sure nothing is 
>> done (which I cannot, in fact, ensure, of course).
>> I'll let you make the call...
>> -- 
>> David Singer
>> Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 13 July 2009 19:03:22 UTC