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
Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 16:20 +0900, Karl Dubost pisze:
Not to say that it creates localization troubles. For exactly the same
meaning:
TV in English = télé in French
acronym abbr
And what is supposed to do an automatic translator when translating
Shannon,
I meant that the removal of the paragraph from the spec (which was done
*after* Nokia sent its paper) does not hold any consequences. The final
content of the video specification of course does. Apologies if this was
unclear.
The volume of traffic may be proportional, but most of its
Thank you.
I want to clarify something in what you say below. In case it helps
calm things down.
At 9:26 +0100 14/12/07, Stijn Peeters wrote:
Simply bashing Apple/Nokia/Ian does not help here. It is not simply a matter
of reverting the spec to say Theora is the recommended format (as you
I've been misquoted on this list several times now so I want to make my
position clear. I believe that the current draft, which was changed
without open discussion, gives a green light for the status quo. The
status quo is that Flash, Quicktime and WMV will remain the 'standards'
for web
Shannon,
What concerns me is that the removed OGG recommendation (specified as
SHOULD rather than MUST) was a step forward to the adoption (however
reluctantly) by corporations and governments of a set of formats that
require no royalties to encode, decode, reverse-engineer or distribute.
Stijn Peeters wrote:
As I said, a SHOULD requirement in the specification which will (given the
current status quo) not be followed by the major(ity of) browser vendors is
useless and should be improved so it is a recommendation which at least can
be implemented. Changing the SHOULD to MUST
--- Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:
What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer
that
their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs
are
free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us?
In the end, it doesn't matter what the law or the
patent says,
-
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Stijn Peeters wrote:
As I said, a SHOULD requirement in the specification which will (given the
current status quo) not be followed by the major(ity of) browser vendors is
useless and should be improved so it is a recommendation which at least can
be implemented. Changing the SHOULD to MUST
[...]
One minor point of clarification; Despite the MPEG
proponents' claims
that MPEG-licensed codecs protect against
liability...
I don't think anyone has said this. What we have
said is that we
have already assessed the risk/benefit/cost of these
codecs and
decided the benefit is
[...]
Objectors claim they are working towards a
resolution that defines a
MUST video format and is accepted by 'all parties'.
I don't believe that
because they know this is impossible and it WILL
affect HTML5 adoption.
How could a required video format be a step forward?
Unless it is
Stijn Peeters wrote:
Quoting Ian, [as a codec that everyone will implement] Theora is not an
option, since we have clear statements from multiple vendors that they will
not implement Theora.. So, in your wording, multiple vendors will choose
not to develop one. Writing a spec while knowing
Seriously, Charles, what are you gaming?
--- Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manual,
Just because someone implemented it without
permission does not
guarantee that users or other implementors of the
technology won't
be driven to Chapter 11 by the patent owners, just
as MP3
Stijn Peeters wrote:
Changing the SHOULD to MUST means that a lot of browser
vendors would not be able to develop a conforming implementation.
Again, this needs to be called out as being patently untrue.
They might *choose* not to develop a conforming implemention, but they
certainly are
[...] That's all. You're all
behaving as if you had
some toys and they've been taken away,
What do they say about the difference between the men
and the boys?
and neither
are true.
Tools, toys, what's the difference?
[...]
Ian, as editor, was asked to do this.
By whom?
It was a
Bring Back Ogg and Theora.
How much did Microsoft bribe you?
-
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Quoting Ian, [as a codec that everyone will implement] Theora is not an
option, since we have clear statements from multiple vendors that they will
not implement Theora.. So, in your wording, multiple vendors will choose
not to develop one. Writing a spec while knowing beforehand that multiple
[...]
Indeed, the only difference is that with H.264 the
large companies in
question have _already_ taken on the risk, so there
is no additional
risk,
... for the big companies ...
whereas with Theora there are no large
distributors today and
therefore patent trolls wouldn't even
On 14 Dec 2007, at 07:15, Shannon wrote:
Ian, as editor, was asked to do this. It was a reasonable request
to reflect work in progress. He did not take unilateral action.
Ok, not unilateral. How about 'behind closed doors?'. Why no open
discussion BEFORE the change?
Please look back
Krzysztof Żelechowski schrieb:
Remember the - in DOCTYPE HTML?
Feel free to be more specific.
Please look back on the mailing list archives. There's been plenty of
discussion about this before, and it's always ended up in the same
loop: A group of people wanting nothing but Ogg/Theora/Vorbis, and
another wanting one standard that all major implementers will support.
I did, and which
Dnia 13-12-2007, Cz o godzinie 22:04 +0100, Maik Merten pisze:
I think it all depends on definition and interpretation. If MPEG is an
organization issuing real standards and Xiph is not... can e.g. WHATWG
be considered to be issuing a real standard? Can individual companies
issue standards?
Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 06:58 -0800, Joseph Daniel Zukiger pisze:
Just wait 'til the behemoth in Redmond has a loosely
held independent subsidiary of something not visibly
connected start making noises about how open source
software might be encumbered.
You can distribute source
Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 23:03 +1100, Shannon pisze:
Again, a false presumption. This was discussed in the context of the
HTML WG at the W3C. Those doors are not closed.
Really? Does that mean I can claim a seat on the board? Where is this
discussion about a public standard made
Again, a false presumption. This was discussed in the context of the
HTML WG at the W3C. Those doors are not closed.
Really? Does that mean I can claim a seat on the board? Where is this discussion about a public standard made public if
not here? Please provide a link to these open
On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Shannon wrote:
Rhetorical question. The reason for 'should' in a standard (or
draft) is that it reflects what we (the public, the developers and
the majority) want but believe some vendors won't or can't
implement. It's an opt-out clause. According to
Also sprach Maciej Stachowiak:
1) Apple representatives have stated that we are ok with the SHOULD
clause remaining.
Thanks for clarifying this. Does this mean there is only one member
who can't live with the SHOULD? If this is the case, I think the
chairs should declare rough consensus
--- Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to thank everyone for their continued
polite participation
:)
Politeness is not always the way to move a
conversation forward.
[...]
3. Are you saying something that will just be
denied, without leading us
to resolve the issue?
On Dec 14, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
Also sprach Maciej Stachowiak:
1) Apple representatives have stated that we are ok with the SHOULD
clause remaining.
Thanks for clarifying this. Does this mean there is only one member
who can't live with the SHOULD? If this is the case, I
On Dec 14, 2007 2:22 AM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are not trying to be obstructive but rather the
reverse. We want a solution which is effective and we are willing to
work to that end, but some things are probably better done at arm's
length or by a neutral party.
Mr. Singer,
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:
Or, rather, if we knew that Apple (and others?) would at least be
willing to open their phones to 3rd party codecs. (Yes, the third party
codecs can be built, if the API for the container is truly open.)
This already exists -- there have
At 0:32 + 15/12/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 2:22 AM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are not trying to be obstructive but rather the
reverse. We want a solution which is effective and we are willing to
work to that end, but some things are probably better
Friends
I am dropping conversing on this subject on this list, unless
something new happens. As I said before, I would prefer to work to
resolve the underlying questions and concerns that make this an open
issue in the first place (e.g. what is the risk in the open-source
codecs?, is there
Ian, thank you for your answers re: video codecs. I agree with you now
that everything that needs to said has been said regarding the change
itself and I think most parties have made it clear how they feel and
what they hope will resolve it.
It's clear the opinions of all parties cannot be
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Shannon wrote:
Ok so I found the other list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Nokia state their
reasons and clearly it was discussed (at Cambridge apparently) but why
two lists for one standard?
Historical reasons -- the W3C initially wasn't interested in
--- Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote:
Or, rather, if we knew that Apple (and others?)
would at least be
willing to open their phones
I think I said phones there?
to 3rd party codecs.
(Yes, the third party
codecs can be built,
It's clear the opinions of all parties cannot be reconciled.
Of course, but they don't have to be because the requirements for the
solution are clear, and I believe Ian and others have stated them several
times now.
For example, it's clear that AVC/H.264 cannot be part of the solution, and
It's clear the opinions of all parties cannot be reconciled.
Of course, but they don't have to be because the requirements for the
solution are clear, and I believe Ian and others have stated them several
times now.
Yes, requirements that CANNOT be met. Ever. Period.
The current
39 matches
Mail list logo
