- From: Oliver Hunt <oliver@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:48:23 -0800
> > 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. That's not unreasonable, but you have yet to give a solid technical reason for reverting to the old text, so far your only argument is that ogg should be kept because it is FOSS, which on its own is insufficient. My understanding based on the numerous comments from Ian is that a goal of the video and audio specs is that they can be implemented in FOSS, and knowing Ian there is basically no chance of anyone slipping anything that couldn't be passed him. As far as wording goes using the word "SHOULD support" is far too weak for HTML5, as SHOULD is relatively meaningless, a much better requirement is that the wording be "MUST support ..."; this is a sensible as having a spec that says "SHOULD support ogg/vorbis and ogg/theora" is fairly useless -- all that will happen is that browser vendors (Apple, Mozilla, Opera, etc) will once again be in a position where the spec's wording means nothing and we end up with yet another standard which is not tied to whatever becomes the actual de facto standard, as implemented by the majority browser. This is much worse for site compatibility for every other browser as it then becomes necessary to determine what the de facto standard actually *is*. For this reason the old text was insufficient and Ian changed the text to indicate that the final wording had not yet been decided. This is not an indication that ogg transport or that the vorbis or theora codecs are being ignored, it is merely an indication that a decision has not yet been made as to the final wording. Note: I can't really comment on the actual issues involved in the codec or transport selection as that's not a region i specialise in. --Oliver
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 16:48:23 UTC