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

[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

From: Manuel Amador <rudd-o@rudd-o.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:48:42 -0500
Message-ID: <200712111848.42610.rudd-o@rudd-o.com>
> Maybe you should take some time to read the previous discussions of
> this issue before making such inflammatory accusations.

What accusation, David?  That Apple would prefer people not use Ogg to author 
Web content, for reasons which are purely monetary in nature?  I only wrapped 
it in humor!

>
> Fear of submarine patents is only one reason Apple is not interested
> in Theora.  There are several other reasons.  H.264 is a technically
> superior solution to Theora.

This is unarguably TRUE.

> Ignoring IP issues, there would be no 
> reason to pick Theora over H.264.  Everyone wants an open freely
> implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora should
> automatically be that codec.

Agreed.  That's also why the standard didn't say MUST.  It said SHOULD.

> About the only argument I've heard in 
> favor of Theora is that "it's open", but that is an argument based
> purely on IP and not on technical merits.

However, I can make a pretty compelling case showing that Vorbis is at least 
on par in performance with AAC.  So at least for Vorbis, it's not just 
freedom but actual results.

> If you consider mobile devices that want to browse the Web, then
> depending on the constraints of the device, a hardware solution may be
> required to view video with any kind of reasonable performance.  A
> mandate of Theora is effectively dictating to those mobile vendors
> that they have to create custom hardware that can play back Theora
> video.  Given that such devices may already need a hardware solution
> for existing video like H.264, it seems unreasonable for HTML5 to
> mandate what hardware a vendor has to develop just to browse Web video
> on a mobile device.

You are writing a very lengthy paragraph founded on a lie.  Where did the 
standard mandate that Theora be required for conformance?  Because I read 
SHOULD, not MUST.  And everyone's gonna be *years* until they're up to 
MUST-level conformance to be concerned about the cost of hardware (Moore 
helps here).

> Or put another way, imagine that GIF was an open format but PNG was IP-
> encumbered.  Would you really want to limit the Web to displaying only
> GIFs just because it was the only open image format available?

What a way to build a strawman!  Who or where says that the Web is going to be 
limited to Theora?  It says SHOULD, man, SHOULD.  You're free to use H.264 if 
you want, and I'm pretty sure that your devices will still sell like crack on 
the street.

> Technical arguments are relevant here, so take some time to consider
> them before accusing people of having shady ulterior motives.

In fact, I honestly wish there were only technical arguments to be made.  This 
discussion would be much, much simpler.

>
> dave
> (hyatt at apple.com)



-- 

	Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o at rudd-o.com>
	Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
	GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/

You will not be elected to public office this year.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20071211/fec53f8a/attachment.pgp>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 15:48:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:59 UTC