[whatwg] Video

Robert J Crisler wrote:
> From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that 
> the ideals of the W3C as expressed in 3.12.7.1 <http://3.12.7.1> would 
> result in a situation that would be superior to simply letting the 
> international standards body for audio and video codecs deal with these 
> technological areas. 

Your plan would, at least, prevent the "standard" codec being supported 
on Free operating systems. Meeting 3.12.7.1 as it stands would not 
prevent this. Therefore, it would be a superior situation.

> Who wins and who loses? Web and new media developers win by having a 
> streamlined workflow and one expectation for video and audio standards 
> support in browsers. Users win by not having to worry about whether or 
> not they have the right plug-in for Site A or Site B. 

Well, the users who can get a licence win. Other users lose.

> The issue of a small licensing fee didn't stop MPEG 1 Part 3 from 
> becoming the ubiquitous world standard for audio. It isn't going to stop 
> MPEG-4 AAC from supplanting it, and it hasn't stopped MPEG-2 and AVC 
> from being the standard for HD codecs. Insisting on purity in these 
> matters while the world moves on strikes me as just a bit quixotic.

It's as much a question of practicality as purity. How do you track and 
collect per-copy royalties for an OS which can be mirrored and 
redistributed by anyone?

Gerv