- From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:54:22 +0900
At 12:27 -0800 10/12/07, Charles wrote: > >> This is probably going to cause some emotional responses, but I >>> feel like I need to say this now. >> >> This argument has met with rational responses in previous threads. >> If you're interested in the origin of the current language, please >> review those earlier discussions. > >I'll try to find those, and thanks for the feedback. > >-- Charles Before this thread gets too steamy again, I should probably point out that the current language is almost a placeholder. We'd like a mandate, not a recommendation, and the ogg/v/t is an uneasy compromise. The w3c staff are, I believe, looking into this whole area, particularly with respect to IPR and licensing. The engineers, should, of course, work out what is best from a functionality point of view, but the position is heavily influenced by IPR and risk considerations as well. The upcoming w3c workshop might shed some light... -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
Received on Monday, 10 December 2007 14:54:22 UTC