Re: Codecs for <video> and <audio>

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Sierk Bornemann<sierkb@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Am 29.07.2009 um 05:12 schrieb Silvia Pfeiffer:
>>
>> OMS is so new
>
> It's based on H.261, which is known very well and whose patent window has
> expired...

It is different, therefore different patents apply.

>> hasn't even been published in an open specification
>
> Not? What's about
>>>
>>> Open Media Stack Video Specifications
>>> http://www.openmediacommons.org/collateral/OMS-video-specs.html

I appreciate the publication of the specification but as long as there
is no open source reference implementation, the specification is not
of much use.


>> Like Theora, no relevant standards body has given it it's blessing.
>
> That's why I try to put a little bit more light on this attempt: to raise
> the attention of the HTML WG (I wouldn't deny its role as a standards body)
> also to OMS video and to not lose track of OMS video besides the other
> alternatives.

I don't think anyone has lost track of OMS. We're all awaiting it's
public appearance.


>> While that is really the only thing that's missing for Theora
>> (according to some recent discussions), OMS has years of tool
>> development, community improvements, and community support to catch up
>> on first.
>
> Maybe Sun's attempt with OMS video deserves a little bit more attention than
> it does yet? Maybe OMS video could benefit, if attention is raised, if
> people and industry contribute to OMS video specification and
> implementation, to make it better and to start implementations at all?
> Maybe.

What implementation should anybody contribute to? It's not available!

Once it's available, I am sure attention will rise.

Regards,
Silvia.

Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 10:10:58 UTC