W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2007

[whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:57:18 -0700
Message-ID: <C531CEF7-0E66-4E11-8838-155CFBE17324@apple.com>

On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>>> What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors,  
>>>> it won't cost us anything in patent license fees.
>>>
>>> Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and  
>>> Microsoft, I guess) a financial competitive advantage over other  
>>> browsers.
>> Why do you have to spin everything in such an inflammatory way? If  
>> you are actually trying to make an argument and not just  
>> grandstanding you might want to assume some minimum of good faith  
>> on our part.
>
> I really don't think that's spinning - it's just a restatement of  
> what you said. You said "[Apple would prefer MPEG because], unlike  
> the case for other browser vendors, we don't have to pay fees.",  
> which is pretty much the same as "[Apple would prefer MPEG because]  
> other browsers would have to pay fees and we wouldn't" - which is a  
> financial advantage.

This isn't the first time you've restated something in what seems  
like a needlessly inflammatory way. Your earlier message in the  
thread basically said that unless Apple implements Ogg Theora, we  
"don't actually have a commitment to interoperability".

> Where's the spin? If you don't want us to read those words at face  
> value and draw the obvious conclusions, then don't list "not having  
> to pay fees" as an advantage for you of MPEG.

The more charitable interpretation would be that this is a lack of  
disadvantage for Apple, rather than an unfair benefit. Not going to  
debate this further.

>> We're fine with the current spec language. Saying nothing at all  
>> would be better, but a SHOULD is fine. I followed up on this  
>> thread because you seem to be advocating a mandatory requirement.
>
> I believe my first comment in this thread talked about SHOULD. I  
> haven't mentioned MUST.

If the goal of your original was not to elevate the SHOULD  
requirement to a MUST, but rather to persuade Apple to implement Ogg  
even though we think we have good reasons not to, then you may want  
to try a different approach. Also, this list is probably not the  
right forum for such discussion.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 13:57:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:54 UTC