- From: Manuel Amador <rudd-o@rudd-o.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:34:34 -0500
Agreed. Let's just return the text, put a MUST in place of the SHOULD, and continue the discussion. If you find your solution within one year, great, s/Ogg/Yoursolution/g. If not, bite the bullet and go ahead. El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Jeff McAdams escribi?: > Dave Singer wrote: > > At 19:04 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote: > >> Dave Singer wrote: > >>> At 13:45 -0500 11/12/07, Fernando wrote: > >>>> Please reconsider the decision to exclude the recommendation of the > >>> > >>> Theora/OGG Vorbis codec in HTML 5 guidelines. > >>> > >>> This entire discussion is founded on a major misapprehension: that > >>> there has been a decision, and that decision was to exclude. This is > >>> simply not true; there is no decision either to include or exclude. > >>> There is a recognition that work is needed. > >>> > >>> I and others have spent a great deal of time on this problem already, > >>> working with a number of people, including the W3C staff. Many of > >>> us -- > >>> maybe all of us -- agree we need to find a solution that enables broad > >>> interoperability and is in accord with w3c and web practices. We have > >>> not yet reached consensus on having found it. That's all. > >> > >> A decision was made to move away from using the ogg family of > >> technologies. > > > > No. > > Yes. > > > A decision was made to have the text reflect the facts that (a) no-one > > is happy with a 'should' and (b) that work is ongoing to find a solution > > (which might be Ogg, or something else). That's all. > > The text was changed from a SHOULD implement Ogg et all to a completely > non-descriptive text. > > If things are up in the air, then why change it? Just leave the text > and have the discussion. If a better solution is arrived at, *then* > change the text of the spec. What need is there to change the current > draft of the spec away from ogg et all? That indicates a move away from > ogg et al by this body, and you're surprised why people get up in arms? > > Sorry, again, doesn't pass the smell test. > > >> While not a final decision, it is a threatening decision > >> to those of us that value freedom and openness and don't appreciate > >> being screwed by big companies. > >> > >> Listen to what the people are saying. > > > > Oh, I am listening. It's by no means clear that the Ogg crowd is at > > all. I'm also spending efforts working on finding a solution. I don't > > count lamenting "I want my ogg" on this list as spending efforts at all. > > Maybe you should listen to the meta-argument, then. > > I'm sick and tired of getting screwed by big companies (including > Apple), and I will *not* quietly accept it. > > If the text is changed to move away from a free and open solution to > something that is going to be encumbered, you better believe I'm going > to be up in arms about it, and I will not apologize for it. This change > is exactly that sort of change. > > I would much rather Apple not implement HTML5 at all, so I can call > Apple out on it in the marketplace, than to let an encumbered technology > be ensconced in a standard like HTML5. And, in the past, these exact > sorts of maneuvering is exactly the sort of behavior that has led to big > companies getting end-user-screwing technologies ensconced into specs > and standards. -- 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/ Among the lucky, you are the chosen one. -------------- 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/e07c5765/attachment.pgp>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 16:34:34 UTC