If this means that it would become possible to put a
dashed line through text at approximately x or m
height, I'm for it, too.
It would make it a lot easier to build certain kinds
of teaching materials for the lower primary grades,
where some kids need the center line to drag their
attention to t
> > (4) Allow the requirement of (1) to be waived, or
> > commuted to the next best thing available under
> RAND
> > terms in the event that there are no
> implementations
> > not known to be encumbered.
>
> The codec required must be specified explicitly by
> name, otherwise the
> online world w
--- 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?
> >
--- 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
>[...] 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
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 M
>[...]
> 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
>[...]
> 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
> [...] including a SHOULD that we know
> beforehand won't be implemented
> is of no use.
I disagree.
It shouldn't take that much thought to understand why.
A publicly acknowledged standards body should build
for the ages, not for the current whims of the
fiscally fat prima-donnas we call publi
> [...]
> 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 i
--- 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
I apologize in advance if this question has already
been broached. In what I have seen of several of the
ogg threads, I seem to see the question being danced
around, but not directly addressed.
Part one of the question:
What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that
their corporate-blessed c
12 matches
Mail list logo
