- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 20:00:59 +1000
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:01 PM, David Gerard<dgerard at gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/7/6 Jim Jewett <jimjjewett at gmail.com>: > >> "As of 2009, there is no single efficient codec which works on all >> modern browsers. ?Content producers are encouraged to supply the video >> in both Theora and H.264 formats, as per the following example" > > > A spec that makes an encumbered format a "SHOULD" is unlikely to be > workable for those content providers, e.g. Wikimedia, who don't have > the money, and won't under principle, to put up stuff in a format > rendered radioactive by known enforced patents. Your wording presumes > a paid Web all the way through. According to http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Licensing, the "W3C will not approve a Recommendation if it is aware that Essential Claims exist which are not available on Royalty-Free terms". So, until the time that H.264 is available royalty-free, I do not see how it can be included - in particular since there is a royalty-free alternative. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 03:00:59 UTC