- From: Shannon <shannon@arc.net.au>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:06:47 +1100
Stijn Peeters wrote: > It does not hold any consequences for the final spec. > Of course it does, or Nokia would not have taken issue with it. When this comes up in the future somebody will claim 'we've been over that' when the issue could have been resolved now. Putting this on hold changes nothing except to stifle debate. What's worse is that all the arguments made now will have to be repeated. > I do not understand why someone would be holding HTML5 ransom over this. > Because they have patents and existing investment in other formats. Are they denying that? No. Are they obsfucating that? Yes. > HTML5 is more than <video>. According to the road map the final HTML5 > recommendation is due in late 2010. This is an argument for AND against changing the text. Therefore not an argument at all. I would say that the fact h.264 fees become due in 2010 would be a case for discussing this now. > There is still plenty of time to discuss > the issue and come to a reasonable solution, and while you might find > <video> more important than <cite>, <cite> is also something to be > discussed. > I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was the volume of traffic on the <video> element is proportional to its importance and therefore not a reason to shut down the debate. Shannon
Received on Friday, 14 December 2007 00:06:47 UTC