[whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Dave Singer wrote:
> Yes.  I re-iterate;  we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora codecs;  
> we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them, and we'd 
> rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue.  It just gets 
> ugly (like the 3G exception).

But that's circular reasoning. "We don't have a commercial reason to 
implement Ogg or Theora, and so we'd rather not have the HTML spec give 
us a commercial reason."

If the HTML spec said that Theora support was a SHOULD, and the other 
browser manufacturers were implementing it, then you would have a 
commercial reason.

If you have nothing against Ogg or Theora, and your "interest in 
multi-vendor multimedia standards is deep and long-lasting, 
interoperable, and very open", and other parties have said that a 
baseline codec for video needs to be open and (as far as can be 
discerned) patent and royalty-free, then surely your position must one 
one of the following:

- You don't actually want a baseline codec in the spec - i.e. you don't 
actually have a commitment to interoperability

- You do want a baseline codec in the spec, but you are happy for it to 
be someone other people can't implement - i.e. you don't actually have a 
commitment to multi-vendor multimedia standards

- You do want a baseline codec in the spec, and want it to be one 
everyone can implement - i.e. you are happy for Ogg Theora (or another 
codec with a similar IP position, such as Dirac) to be it

That seems to logically enumerate the possibilities. Or have I missed 
something?

Gerv

(Just in case there's any concern, I speak only for myself in this post, 
as someone keen to see logical debate on this issue, and not for my 
employer.)

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2007 01:48:37 UTC