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

[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:14:42 -0600
Message-ID: <74AEB734-CF0D-4A8D-B20C-70F3945DCCA1@apple.com>
Also as Maciej said earlier, we at Apple did not ask that the SHOULD  
wording be removed and had stated we could live with it.


On Dec 12, 2007, at 1:12 PM, David Hyatt wrote:

> On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>> David Hyatt wrote:
>>> 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.  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.  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.
>> Openness is a prerequisite. Technical adequacy is a prerequisite.  
>> The technically best solution is not a prerequisite. In case it  
>> isn't obvious yet, an open, adequate format is preferred over a  
>> better proprietary one.
> I don't think that is obvious at all, especially when the <video>  
> tag's chief competition, Flash, is using the technically superior  
> solution.  Why would authors switch away from Flash if <video>  
> doesn't offer any technically compelling reason to switch?
>>> 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.
>> Thanks. I wasn't previously convinced we needed to mandate *any*  
>> particular format, but you just convinced me. If hardware is  
>> support is required for some devices, then it does indeed sound  
>> like a good idea to mandate some minimum level of conformance. It  
>> is far better that this minimum level of conformance be an open,  
>> freely implementable standard such as Ogg/Theora than a known  
>> patent encumbered format such as H.264.
> Good.  I also believe there should be a mandated baseline.  That's  
> why I think SHOULD is too weak, and that we should be working  
> towards a MUST.
>>> 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?
>> Please stop attacking straw men. No one has suggested that. Under  
>> those circumstances, I absolutely would support requiring all  
>> browsers to display GIFs. This would not prohibit them from also  
>> displaying PNGs if they chose to license the relevant patents.
> Right, but, continuing the analogy, the issue you run into is if the  
> Web at large considers PNG to be superior and just ends up using it  
> anyway, then specifying "SHOULD use GIF" is rather irrelevant.  I do  
> not think people will switch to <video> using Theora when a  
> technically superior alternative exists that will also work in  
> Internet Explorer (Flash).  We have to make sure that <video> is on  
> par technically with what Flash can do.
>>> Technical arguments are relevant here, so take some time to  
>>> consider them before accusing people of having shady ulterior  
>>> motives.
>> Technical arguments are relevant, but do not control. They are  
>> neither the only nor the most important consideration.
> Similarly an inadequate open standard should not be proposed as the  
> only way forward simply by virtue of its openness.  Wanting an open  
> standard does not mean that Theora should just be automatically  
> chosen to be that open standard.  It is also a logical error to  
> assume that openness is not desired by a vendor merely because one  
> potential open format is not approved by that vendor.
> dave
> (hyatt at apple.com)
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 11:14:42 UTC

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