http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/decoding-the-html-5-video-codec-debate.ars
Huh, I got quoted (from the WHATWG list), and my quote even got
illustrated with a lolcat:
In an e-mail on the WHATWG list, Wikimedia Foundation volunteer
media contact David Gerard said that the organization is also
interested in helping Mozilla to raise general awareness of the
advantages that unencumbered video would bring to the Internet.
"I'd also point out that Wikimedia has vast publicity abilities in
this direction," he wrote. "And we're watching the progress of Theora
and Dirac on a day-by-day basis, for obvious reasons. So if you need
large charitable organisations to help you with making this the
obvious publicity choice for a happy Internet with cute fluffy
kitties, I can tell you we'll be right there!"
[image of cute fluffy kittie]
(The "we" I was thinking of was Foundation staff and volunteers
interested in the video efforts, and Commons regulars.)
Greg Maxwell and I have been posting to the mailing list to push Ogg
Theora. I mean, H.264 is technically marvellous and it'd be a lovely
choice, but it's known patent encumbrances - and that MPEG-LA enforce
them - make it *radioactive* for our purposes.
It's IMO futile pushing much harder on the list - Hixie's the editor,
it's his decision, he's an honorable fellow and he's decided he really
can't honestly put Ogg Theora in the spec at present. So it goes back
to pushing Ogg Theora as the de facto format for the web.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
