- From: Manuel Amador <rudd-o@rudd-o.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:21:58 -0500
> That sounds too accusatory to me. I'd be surprised to find malice, > immorality, or profiteering at the root. I do think the recent changes > to the document are supported by weak pseudo-legal doubletalk from > engineers afraid to get in trouble. > > Don't expect good quality specifications from such a climate. Look, guys. I don't think I've explained myself well, partly because I've come on too strong. There is no evidence of malice. There's also no evidence of profiteering. There *is* evidence of immorality, if you define spreading falsehoods as immoral (see "Ogg is proprietary" comment). The rest of the discussion is basically a disagreement on how risky it would be to implement Ogg on browsers. Some of us don't feel it's risky, others feel it's too risky to even consider (I understand -- billions of dollars may be at stake). The spec is also very good, overall. -- 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/ Things past redress and now with me past care. -- William Shakespeare, "Richard II" -------------- 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/20071212/49e374b3/attachment.pgp>
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2007 21:21:58 UTC