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

[whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

From: Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 01:02:10 +0100
Message-ID: <1197504131.7016.140.camel@a1dmin.vola.spe.com.pl>

Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 18:21 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
> >
> That's no reason to NOT SUGGEST Ogg Vorbis / Theora.  No one here is saying 
> that HTML5 should forbid proprietary codecs -- all we're claiming for is the 
> judicious and well-deserved mention of two free technologies in a document 
> that will be read by MILLIONS of people to come.  And you just killed that.

You're exaggerating, you are.  If Web developers read the specification
(or any specification, for that matter), the Web would not look like it
does.  But they do not; the prefer Dreamweaver, and whatever you have
got.

> 
> > Small companies aren't targetted by patent trolls. Only big (really big)
> > companies are. 
> 
> And therefore they're deserving of more protection?  Sounds like a racket to 
> me.
> 
> > I am sorry you perceive them this way.
> 
> Be honest, don't tell me you're sorry because you are not.  You're sorry when 
> something personally sad happens to someone you know, not when there's a 
> perfectly valid disagreement on an action you took.

Clairvoyant?


> I don't care much for the content in my own computer, since I encode my things 
> in free formats and using free technology, but I will care when I start 
> playing videos on my computer and it says to me "you need codec X, which 
> unfortunately is not available for your Linux computer".  If you keep the 
> section you censored, the likelihood of that happening is much, much lower.

Not really.

> 
> > Yes, the big players here are fearful and doubtful of the uncertain patent
> > situation surrounding Ogg. That is in fact the entire problem.
> 
> How curious that the Ogg Vorbis authors never felt that fear, uncertainty and 
> doubt.  Perhaps they didn't because they actually did their homework and 
> researched the patent minefield before stepping on one of those mines, 
> instead of saying "it can't be done, we're too afraid"?

Irrelevant, dismissed.

> 
> Sure.  We will just have to wait till we all have 50 megabits/s at home to 
> watch 320x240 videos or something.  Maybe we can convince podcast authors to 
> start casting in RIFF WAVE -- I hear it has awesome quality at 8000 Hz mono!

Then don't.  Read books, it will do you more good.

> 
> > Sadly there's really no such thing as an exhaustive patent search.
> 
> There's also no such thing as a perfect prophylactic, yet people still use 
> condoms because they're good enough.  

That does not mean you can force somebody to use them when he is afraid.

> It'd be fantastic if someone from Xiph pronounced himself on the matter in 
> this forum.

But it would not change anything.

> Tactics change over time.  Anyway, it's not our duty to concern ourselves with 
> the *intentions* of the players (though I did shine some light on the issue 
> because it's good to know what the players want). But it is our duty to 
> reflect over the lasting consequences of our actions.

This particular action, as already noted, is temporary and it is not
meant to have any.


> Stalling Ogg for a pie-in-the-sky nonexistent solution is not the answer.  Ogg 
> is already working in many browsers (both Vorbis and Theora).  Despite 
> continued and persistent assertions by bullies (backed on NOTHING but hot 
> air), Ogg is still the best answer.

Nobody claimed it is the answer, it is just a workaround.

> 
> Let me be humorous for a moment.  This whole discussion (which is actually NOT 
> representative of the interests of the anti-Ogg bullies) could be summarized 
> as:
> 
> - Apple: the neighborhood punk is out to get us
> - Nokia: yeah
> - MS: indeed
> - (WHATWG): OK let's just not go out of our house

Nobody said that, but "You are free to stay at home until we come up
with a better solution".

> 
> > For that, we need a codec that is known to not 
> > require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the
> > open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be
> > usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large
> > companies.
> 
> BMP?  MJPEG?  WAV?

You are being told this question it will take some time to answer this
question.

> 
> > The whole point of the change was to make the point that we need something
> > that will not screw you. Ogg isn't a solution, as it won't be implemented
> > by Apple and Microsoft.
> 
> Honestly, if Apple and Microsoft don't implement Ogg, it will *GUARANTEED* not 
> screw me.  If you put it in the spec, they will have to implement it or -- 
> failing that -- there are simple JS-based fallback solutions that are 
> perfectly degradable.  So there is NO excuse.

It depends on Web authors, and authors rely on what they can see.
Otherwise everybody would be using Q for quotations by now.


> For the record: I don't see a conspiracy.  All I see is big interests clearly 
> colluding in the open to further restrict choice for the rest of us.

For the record: 

col?lude    
?verb (used without object), -lud?ed, -lud?ing. 
1.
to act together through a secret
understanding, esp. with evil or
harmful intent. 
2.
to conspire in a fraud.


colluded. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random
House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colluded (accessed:
December 12, 2007).
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2007 16:02:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:38 UTC