- From: Sierk Bornemann <sierkb@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:30:39 +0200
- To: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@us.ibm.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Knowing, that currently there has been a HTML WG survey about how to deal with the wording in the HTML 5 spec concerning the video codecs, especially OggTheora/OggVorbis (versus H.264), I want to ask, if Sun's attempt to offer a solution to that tricky problem via the royalty- free Open Media Commons (OMS) initiative under the leading role of Sun Microsystems is far out any discussion and far out any deeper investigation? Would it not be worth to draw closer attention to also that attempt, whose goal is to solve exactly that problem the HTML WG curls around since a long time? What about further and more backing and foster that initiative in what they are doing? FYI: OMS Video, A Project of Sun's Open Media Commons Initiative http://blogs.sun.com/openmediacommons/entry/oms_video_a_project_of Open Media Commons http://www.openmediacommons.org/ Open Media Stack Video Specifications http://www.openmediacommons.org/collateral/OMS-video-specs.html Open Media Stack - Video Specification V0.91 (June 9, 2009), Updated video specification for OMS now available for community review http://www.openmediacommons.org/collateral/OMS-video-v0.91.pdf Crawling the archives of the HTML WG concerning <audio> and <video>, I haven't found any closer discussion, that nearer considers this OMS attempt as a possible solution. My question is: why? Or better: why not? Why only focus on Ogg Theora|Vorbis versus H.264? What is the point, that disqualifies OMS from being further discussed (or better: discussed at all) as a viable royalty-free alternative to the two well- known but disputed favorites? Regards, Sierk -- Sierk Bornemann http://sierkbornemann.de/
Received on Tuesday, 28 July 2009 23:31:21 UTC