- From: alex <mail@nabu.be>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:59:17 +0100
The difference with the "should" is that the browsers who support standards will support ogg natively. The fact that big companies like nokia etc don't actually use OGG is less my concern, it's more about the free developers knowing that ogg will be supported at the users' end. Patents is less my area of expertise as I am (luckily) a resident of the EU, but this whole submarine patent bussiness has got me thinking that America better clean up ship quickly. Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > > On 11 Dec 2007, at 15:33, Wilson Michaels wrote: > >> In reference to: >> http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142&to=1143 >> >> I am a retired software developer who is outraged that Ogg >> technology has been removed from HTML5. It must be >> reinstated as a "should" option so that the world is not >> held hostage to proprietary implementations of media >> technologies. Proprietary technologies eventually are used >> to limit inovation and prevent entry of other thechnologies >> that threaten the proprietary company in some way. We don't >> need another MP3 fiasco. > > What difference is there between a SHOULD that few, if any, major > companies implement, and one that doesn't exist? The spec will never > recommend any format that cannot be freely (as in beer) be implemented > safely by developers (i.e., without risking being sued). Also, MP3 is > not a proprietary standard: you can go out and buy a copy of the spec > if you wish, and pay any patent charges due. You still, as with > anything invented within the last 20 years (including > Ogg/Vorbis/Theora), run the risk of a submarine patents. > > > -- > Geoffrey Sneddon > <http://gsnedders.com/> >
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 08:59:17 UTC