Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed
I don't find anything objectionable with that suggestion. It gives us the best of two worlds. Of course, should x264 be freed, there would be no longer any reason not to put Ogg alongside x264 in the spec as MUST. > I have a suggestion: > > "Nokia, Apple: you want H.264, you free H.264. Make it irrevocably > perpetually royalty-free, it goes in. Do that with any other codec > that's technically better than Ogg Theora, it goes in. You can't do > that, we name Ogg Theora as a SHOULD. OK with you?" > > Anyone see anything unacceptable in that approach? Find someone from > Apple and Nokia who can actually say "Yes" or "No" to this, perhaps > the fellow from Nokia who wrote that darling little paper claiming Ogg > was too proprietary. You're from Apple, you'd know who can say "yes" > or "no" to this. (I realise you've already stated Apple is okay with a > "SHOULD" for Ogg, perhaps you can explain Apple's earlier objections > without appearing to contradict that.) > > > - d. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Rudd-O - Also sprach DragonFear Chess tonight. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed
If you need to pay ¢1 for copies distributed, then it isn't royalty free and it can't be on the standard as a requirement. Flat fee is not royalty free. YES, I MEANT BEING ABLE TO USE IT WITHOUT PAYING ANY KIND OF FEE. Am I too daft for my words to be understood? El Lunes 07 Ene 2008, escribió: > On Jan 7, 2008 7:36 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Out of the question, it must be royalty-free. That's one of the > > requirements, so unless you can convince the holder to go RF, no chance. > > Did you even read what I wrote? > > >>RAD doesn't charge royalties - period. You pay one flat-fee to use Bink > >>or Smacker in your product. > > If you mean being able to use it without paying _any kind_ of fee, > that's another thing. > > Royalty: a sum of money paid to a patentee for the use of a patent or > to an author or composer for _each_ copy of a book sold or for _each_ > public performance of a work. > > And about your last sentence.. As I said: > >>It might be worth trying to contact RAD and see if this could be a > > walkable road. > > -- Federico BP -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Sonique - It feels so good Your boss is a few sandwiches short of a picnic. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed
Out of the question, it must be royalty-free. That's one of the requirements, so unless you can convince the holder to go RF, no chance. El Lunes 07 Ene 2008, Federico Bianco Prevot escribió: > Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option? > http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm > > >Bink is a "better-than-DVD" class codec - it compresses at higher > > quality than DVD > > >at up to three times the playback speed! > >Bink uses up to 16 MB less memory at runtime than other codecs. > >It has been licensed for over 3,800 games since 1999! > > It is not open-source, but the good thing is that the codec is > licensed on a flat-fee basis. > > Quoting their internet site: > >Our codecs are licensed on a flat-fee basis. > >RAD doesn't charge royalties - period. You pay one flat-fee to use Bink > >or Smacker in your product. 'Nuff said. > > I really couldn't find any comparison versus any other codec, > > compression and quality wise, but their site says: > >Bink is the best quality codec available. Bink creates incredible > > looking video at extremely low > > >data rates. 256x192 animations for the Nintendo DS can be compressed > > all the way down to > > >50 kps and still look great. 640x480 animations can be crammed into > > 200 kps with little loss. > > >At higher data rates, Bink can play HD video (1280x720) at 900 kps > > (DVDs use a 1000 kps > > >data rate for 640x480 video). > > And even more important: > >Another nice feature of Bink is that it's technology was completely > > independently developed. > > >We are not based on any MPEG or other committee standards (our > > techniques are quite > > >different, in fact) of any kind, so the IP is safe, encumbrance-free, > >and (best of all) entirely royalty free. > > There are probably problems with open-sourcing it, but it might be > worth trying to contact RAD and see if this could be a walkable road. > > -- Federico BP > > On Dec 11, 2007 3:39 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the HTML5 > > spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a useful > > interoperable conclusion. When a codec is found that is mutually > > acceptable to all major parties I will update the spec to require that > > instead and then reply to all the pending feedback on video codecs. > > > >http://www.whatwg.org/issues/#graphics-video-codec > > > > -- > > Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL > > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Haddaway - What is love (7" mix) Good night to spend with family, but avoid arguments with your mate's new lover. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] The political and legal status of WHATWG
> As a web author I have *never* relied on the HTML, ECMAScript or CSS > specs. What I do is look on 'A List Apart', 'htmlhelp.com' and tutorials > spread around the web to see the current state of browser support. This > is my reality as a designer and I do not expect HTML5, in any form, will > change that. I have to say that, in my case, I've always relied on the specs, read them fully and then tried to implement them. You usually get a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. Not to diminish the value of alistapart -- they carry pretty good techniques. > We can't use not following a standard as an argument not > to make one, especially when that standard is optional anyway. Can > anyone guarantee that Microsoft, Apple or Nokia will fully comply with > HTML5 if we don't recommend a video codec as some have requested? This is understandably true. > Since there is some serious inconsistencies in the arguments being > presented it is hard not to assume this is all just a stalling tactic in > support of commercial ends (defacto adoption of h.264). De-facto adoption of unfree codecs will, sadly, happen if the recommendation doesn't mention free codecs. We free software users will continue to be second-class citizens on the Web (most free software people able to use a smidgen of the multimedia content on the Web are able to do so only because we've made a proprietary compromise, which should not have been needed). Intentions matter. Special interests should give way to the general public's interest. > The argument that we are stuck on is: should we make *recommendations* > in a standard that won't be followed by all vendors? I believe we should > and apparently there are precedents for doing so. If we cannot move to either a MUST or a SHOULD for Ogg in the recommendation, then at least a mention in the same vein of JPEG and GIF in the earlier recommendations should be included. Since that kind of mention is not an "order to implement" or anything akin to that, I don't see a reason why all interested parties wouldn't approve. > Having said all that I don't want this thread to continue the video > codec discussion. What I want is a clearer position statement from > WHATWG on the publics role in defining this specification. > > Shannon -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Michael Jackson - Jam After all, all he did was string together a lot of old, well-known quotations. -- H. L. Mencken, on Shakespeare signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Wait, not all of us want *only* Ogg. The role of the HTML5 recommendation is not to impede progress -- if people want to hook their VIDEO tag implementations to more than just one codec, however encumbered and legally risky they might be, by ALL means they should be free to take that chance. But some of us also wanted the recognition and endorsement of Ogg as a useful technology, and as a baseline fallback (which, honestly, at least in the case of Vorbis audio, it's not only a fallback but it's actually state-of-the-art). El Vie 14 Dic 2007, Geoffrey Sneddon escribió: > 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 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. > > > -- > Geoffrey Sneddon > <http://gsnedders.com/> -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Unabomber - 6Etero 6Gay You will be traveling and coming into a fortune. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Charles, You can understand implementation to be "writing code", or implementation to be "putting to use". Nowadays it would be technically illegal in the U.S. to use LAME (perfectly good copylefted software, and I understand it to be the highest quality implementation of a Layer 3 encoder) to encode anything without paying a license. The fact that people do not use it in the States can be understood as a consequence of the patent. And my name is Manu*e*l. Again, to use a better word, I can neither program an AVC implementation, nor distribute it, nor distribute x264, nor use x264 to encode files if I live in the States. Sure there are a few provisions for people who do small-time encoding, but if we're discussing inclusion in HTML5, AVC is even more dangerous than Ogg Theora. In fact, even if it were possible to release *all* AVC patents royalty-free to the public, there'd still be the risk of submarine patents just as some claim to be the case nowadays with Ogg technology. El Jue 13 Dic 2007, Charles escribió: > 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 implementors > > were driven to the underground in the nineties and early 2000's. > > Nobody has ever been "driven to Chapter 11" or "driven underground" for > implementing a standards-based encoder or decoder. > > I don't believe that you don't understand the difference between > "implementing" and "distributing", so I guess now you're just trolling. > Good luck. > > -- Charles -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Stellar project feat. Brandi Emma - Get up stand up Cheer Up! Things are getting worse at a slower rate. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Patent on VP3 / Apple
Good to know. El Jue 13 Dic 2007, Charles escribió: > > Is there anything truthful / false in this comment? > > That commenter is completely sans clues. > > QuickTime does ship with a (deactivated by default) Flash media handler, > but it doesn't support VP6. In fact, it doesn't even support Sorenson > Spark. > > Also, VP3 and VP6 are completely different codecs, making the poster's > remark that "they would take little additional risk shipping a theora > decoder" the kind of comforting conclusion that only an idiot can come to. > > -- Charles -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Stellar project feat. Brandi Emma - Get up stand up Don't look now, but there is a multi-legged creature on your shoulder. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[whatwg] Patent on VP3 / Apple
Dave,
I just received a rather disturbing comment (if it is true) on my Web site.
And I quote:
-
Apple's position on this is very surprising. Apple is ostensibly concerned
about some unspecified legal risk from Theora. However, Apple ships the
flash plugin, including the VP6 codec, which is based on the same VP3 code as
Theora. Therefore, if there were some undisclosed patent, Apple is already
at risk. They would take little additional risk shipping a theora
decoder.
This leaves only two plausible explanations for Apple's
behavior. Either:
1) Apple's real motivation is to promote Quicktime by sabotaging Ogg
or
2) Adobe is indemnifying Apple against a patent lawsuit over the Flash
plugin
-
Is there anything truthful / false in this comment? I'm only airing it here
to give you a chance so it doesn't stick as a rumor -- this particular
comment has been making its rounds (see Technorati, for example).
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Scooter - See me, feel me (radio edit)
Q: Why is it that Mexico isn't sending anyone to the '84 summer games?
A: Anyone in Mexico who can run, swim or jump is already in LA.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Clever. But wrong. Let's not discuss your definition of the word proprietary, because we'll never agree. Let's just focus on the fact that AVC is not implementable by everyone. 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 implementors were driven to the underground in the nineties and early 2000's. Today, if you want to get LAME, you need to go samizdat if you're in a country with software patents. That makes AVC unfree, period. Oh, and therefore, it's not even on the table for HTML5. El Jue 13 Dic 2007, Charles escribió: > > Just because AVC is not a standard doesn't mean it's not proprietary. > > I think you meant "Just because AVC is a standard doesn't mean it's not > proprietary". > "Proprietary" means owned and controlled by one entity. Yes, AVC > incorporates patents owned by several companies. But nobody owns it, and > anybody can participate in its ecosystem. > > > We call proprietary anything that can't be implemented by the whole world > > without third-party permission. > > Even by that unique definition, AVC is not proprietary since it can and is > (e.g. x264) implemented by the whole world without permission. > > -- Charles -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Scooter - See me, feel me (radio edit) The man who sets out to carry a cat by its tail learns something that will always be useful and which never will grow dim or doubtful. -- Mark Twain signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Xiph.Org Statement Regarding the HTML5 Draft and the Ogg Codec Set
> Speex would be a good codec for that ;-)
Abso-incredibly-luting RIGHT!
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Scooter - See me, feel me (radio edit)
Your life would be very empty if you had nothing to regret.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Xiph.Org Statement Regarding the HTML5 Draft and the Ogg Codec Set
> It would make no sense to require a different baseline audio codec
> for the non-sfx use case for than was required for .)
Of course it would make sense. People use their Web pages to put up music all
the time, much more often than for sound FX. They aren't gonna upload files
tens of megabytes in size for each song!
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Scooter - See me, feel me (radio edit)
You'll never see all the places, or read all the books, but fortunately,
they're not all recommended.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Just because AVC is not a standard doesn't mean it's not proprietary. We call proprietary anything that can't be implemented by the whole world without third-party permission. If it serves the interest of the discussion better, let's eschew the world proprietary and use the words "non-free" or "unfree", both of which describe AVC well. El Jue 13 Dic 2007, Charles escribió: > Marc, > > > > [The "anti-Ogg camp"] are acting with their shareholders in mind. They have > everything to gain and nothing to loose as they all have their platforms, > i.e. Window, OS X, Itunes, cellular handset, that they control/use their > propiety formats. > > > > I guess you're implying that AVC/H.264 is "proprietary", which is false. > > > > AVC is a standard under both the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) > and ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG). > > > > Also, AVC is a de-facto standard. Every iPod supports it. Every PSP > supports it. Every HD-DVD and Blu-Ray player supports it. The mobile > ecosystem has long since adopted MPEG-4, and most video services either use > AVC now or are on track to. Even Adobe, who's had lots of success to this > point with proprietary formats, has finally adopted it a replacement of > VP6. > > > > Comparing apples-to-apples, Ogg Theora isn't a standard. It was a > proprietary On2 video codec, and it didn't become a standard just because > On2 gave everyone a royalty-free license, so you can see how some people > might still think of it as proprietary. The fact that it's open-source > isn't relevant, since of course there are open-source implementations of > AVC as well. It was already old technology when On2 gave it away, so it's > MPEG-1-like inefficiency makes it retro (to put it kindly) on the PC, and > completely unsuitable for typicaly 3G mobile throughput. > > > > I hope this has been helpful, > > > > - Charles -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Scooter - See me, feel me (radio edit) People are beginning to notice you. Try dressing before you leave the house. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[whatwg] A possible solution to the submarine patent issue (was: Re: So called "pre-exising use by large companies")
(this might sound a bit odd, but bear with me) "How do we test a patient that doesn't want to be tested?", said House. > I don't think there are any easy answers here. About the best solution I > can come up with is to provide browser detection of media formats. That way > web developers can do a runtime test for a media format and tell the user > "Hey, you need to install a plugin" if the format chosen by the website is > not available. Since the vast majority of computers have MPEG4 support, > that will likely become the resulting "standard" like JPGs and GIFs. With this idea (a good one) you don't even *need* to do runtime detection. The browser can just send an Accept: application/ogg, video/mpeg, mime/type and the server can decide which file to serve, and if no content type satisfies that, then the server returns the appropriate HTTP response which should make the browser look the codec up in a registry. That way, we can have a third-party organization distribute the Theora/Vorbis codecs and Ogg container format demuxers, and every big player is automatically free from the burden of responding to patent trolls, because big organizations in fear of torpedo lawsuits won't be "distributing or manufacturing" "risky" technology. > If enough people push long enough and hard enough for Theora, it will > become a new standard alongside these existing formats, much like PNG. > Especially if a few major web browsers ship Theora support long enough to > assuage fears over its unknown patent status. Using the third-party registry / distributor solution (that, I hear, has already been proposed), would let Opera and Mozilla (and WebKit distributors) ship Ogg Theora / Vorbis embedded, while serving the needs of Microsoft, Apple and Nokia simultaneously. Using a phrase from Taub, "we don't subtract, we *add*". And let's not forget that all Linux distributors already distribute Ogg technology. > > Thanks, > Jerason Banes > > On Dec 12, 2007 6:00 AM, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >From what I read, it is argued, that "pre-existing use by large > > > > companies" is a good indication of less risk for submarine patents. > > > > It is also argued, that Theora has not much "pre-exsting use by large > > companies", and among others, H.264 does. > > > > Is this really true? I have a hard time believing that no "large > > companies" shipped Theora decoder ever. And how large is large? I > > would appreciate any information on this matter. > > > > -- > > Seo Sanghyeon -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ You prefer the company of the opposite sex, but are well liked by your own. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
> That sounds too accusatory to me. I'd be surprised to find malice, > immorality, or profiteering at the root. I do think the recent changes > to the document are supported by weak pseudo-legal doubletalk from > engineers afraid to get in trouble. > > Don't expect good quality specifications from such a climate. Look, guys. I don't think I've explained myself well, partly because I've come on too strong. There is no evidence of malice. There's also no evidence of profiteering. There *is* evidence of immorality, if you define spreading falsehoods as immoral (see "Ogg is proprietary" comment). The rest of the discussion is basically a disagreement on how risky it would be to implement Ogg on browsers. Some of us don't feel it's risky, others feel it's too risky to even consider (I understand -- billions of dollars may be at stake). The spec is also very good, overall. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Things past redress and now with me past care. -- William Shakespeare, "Richard II" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities
I agree with you, James. At this point, the specification does in no way tilt the balance toward proprietary technology, and that's commendable. It's just that some people feel that removing Ogg and leaving the matter unspecified would tilt the scale toward proprietary Web Babelization all over again. El Mié 12 Dic 2007, James Bennett escribió: > On Dec 11, 2007 6:26 PM, Jeff McAdams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would much rather Apple not implement HTML5 at all, so I can call > > Apple out on it in the marketplace, than to let an encumbered technology > > be ensconced in a standard like HTML5. > > You know, I've been looking at the current HTML5 draft over the course > of the day. I've read it pretty thoroughly. And I can't for the life > of me find the bit that "ensconces an encumbered technology". Would > you be so kind as to point me to it? > > I ask because all I see is a strongly-worded paragraph about the need > for an open, interoperable, unencumbered format. Perhaps my eyes are > going. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Things will be bright in P.M. A cop will shine a light in your face. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed
I'd rephrase it as # Has had traction, time and exposure in the market, enough so patent threats should have arisen already. Which is basically the same meaning, and includes Ogg Vorbis technology. Because if America Online (Winamp) is not a big company, then I don't know the meaning of the word "big". I'd also not use a hash to denote a bullet point ;-). El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves escribió: > On 12/11/07, L. David Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > # is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies > > > > Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a > > loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the > > choice of codec for any reason it chooses, potentially including not > > wanting the element to succeed in creating an open standard > > for video on the Web? > > I agree as well that that sentence is in need of better wording as to > avoid what may be an ambiguous statement. > > -Ivo -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
El Mié 12 Dic 2007, Robert Sayre escribió: > On Dec 11, 2007 6:51 PM, David Hyatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SHOULD is toothless. > > Spefications aren't laws. MUSTs are toothless as well. > > > It carries absolutely no weight. I don't think > > it's appropriate for such weak language to be in the HTML5 spec. It > > should either be a MUST (which is inappropriate at this juncture for > > reasons that Dave Singer. Ian Hickson and myself have posted about in > > previous messages) or just not be mentioned at all. > > It isn't weak language. It places the blame squarely on the party who > fails to meet the requirement. Agreed with you, Robert. If SHOULD carries absolutely no weight... then why don't we just leave the paragraph there? Stop eluding this question. Oh, prepare for a barrage of uneducated comments. My article just hit Digg front page and is climbing rapidly in diggs. I edited the text on the article a bit to discourage uneducated participation on the list. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Q: How many Zen masters does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master stays out of the way. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Dave Singer escribió: > At 13:09 -0500 11/12/07, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: > >Fact: Vorbis is the *only* codec whose patent status has been widely > >researched, nearly to exhaustion. > > You are clearly completely unaware of the extensive analysis done of > other codecs, including those that are licensed. And all those other analyses have yielded us this stalemate? > This is getting marginally offensive. [...] I disagree on the discussion getting offensive. We aren't calling each other names (for the record, calling a company names isn't calling each other names, and so far not even that has happened much). > > >And even if Apple gets sued for patent infringement, that doesn't mean > > that the suit has merits -- experts already looked at the evidence > > surrounding Vorbis and patentability, and unanimously said "it's clear". > > Cool. Bring them on. We might even *buy* patent insurance from > them, who knows? Money for jam, right? Buy your patent insurance from a third party that is not involved with the research done by the Xiph foundation. Just as we ALSO want a codec that is not involved in the machinations of the proprietary companies. > At 15:12 -0500 11/12/07, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: > >And the reason they don't support it is because they have colluded against > > Ogg Vorbis or FLAC because they free consumers from proprietary prisons > > Thanks for telling us our own situation and motivation. I really needed > that. > > Fact: we ship standard codecs and container formats. I took an iPod > video to a standards meeting 10 days after its introduction and had > *5* other companies using their own implementations of MP4 file > format, AAC, and H.264, make files for it that played. I was and > remain proud of that; it demonstrates more than any email how > committed we are to a multi-vendor, open, world. That is a testament to the value of standards. No one ever said you didn't make standards. I claimed you made *proprietary* standards. Playpens where only the big boys get to play and the rest get to pay. But in all fairness, I should bring up that you also made Zeroconf possible, and that's awesome. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ You would if you could but you can't so you won't. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[whatwg] Reasons for moving Ogg to MUST status (was Re: HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities)
> That's not unreasonable, but you have yet to give a solid technical > reason for reverting to the old text, Reasons to put the Ogg tech suite back on the spec: - it's Free (who here hates beer or freedom?) - it's patent-unencumbered (this is a FACT) - it's technically very good (Theora) or even superb (Vorbis and FLAC) - it's widely available and readily installable - it's being integrated in popular Web browsers RIGHT NOW - it enables little guys to produce content at minimal cost COME ON, what other reasons do you need? > so far your only argument is that ogg should be kept because it is > FOSS, which on its own is insufficient. I just gave you N more reasons. > As far as wording goes using the word "SHOULD support" is far too > weak for HTML5, as SHOULD is relatively > meaningless, a much better requirement is that the wording be "MUST > support ..."; this is a sensible as > having a spec that says "SHOULD support ogg/vorbis and ogg/theora" is > fairly useless -- all that will happen > is that browser vendors (Apple, Mozilla, Opera, etc) will once again > be in a position where the spec's wording > means nothing and we end up with yet another standard which is not > tied to whatever becomes the actual > de facto standard, as implemented by the majority browser. This is > much worse for site compatibility for every > other browser as it then becomes necessary to determine what the de > facto standard actually *is*. This is not the year 2000. Mozilla and Opera are embedding Theora video. That's a user base large enough to force the rest of the players to get with the program. Solid technical, philosophical and practical reasons to move Ogg to MUST. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes. -- Dylan Thomas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Thanks for your research, Shannon. Quite enlightening. Show of hands: who here believes that the anti-Ogg camp is acting selflessly, with no vested interests, and in the best interest of progress and other W3C values? El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Shannon escribió: > This is an except from an MPEG-LA press release: > > "Owners of patents or patent applications determined by MPEG LA’s patent > experts to be essential to the H.264/AVC standard (“standard”) include > Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research > Institute of Korea (ETRI), France Télécom, Fujitsu, IBM, Matsushita, > Mitsubishi, **Microsoft**, Motorola, **Nokia**, Philips, Polycom, Robert > Bosch GmbH, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Thomson, Toshiba, and Victor Company > of Japan (JVC)." > > So lets review the three companies loudly objecting to OGG, > misrepresenting its status and continuing to fuel this debate: > > Apple: Has heavy investment in H.264, AAC and DRM via iTunes. Known for > proprietry hardware lock-in. > Microsoft: Heavy investment in WMV and DRM. 'Essential patent holder' in > H.264. Major shareholder in Apple. Known for proprietry browser and OS > lock-in and standards disruption. > Nokia: 'Essential patent holder' and heavy invester in H.264. Argued for > software patents in EU. > > Stop believing their lies! Don't you think it's weird that Nokia is > complaining about patents while simultaneous holding numerous video > related ones? OGG/Vorbis/Theora are open and as safe as codecs can get. > Its patent risks are practically non-existent. It has no licensing fees. > It is easy to implement across all major (and most minor) platforms. It > is the format of choice - unless you're Nokia, Apple or Microsoft. > > Finally, nobody has mentioned that the licensing terms on H.264/AVC > state that in about 8 years from now ALL internet H.264 content and > software becomes licensable. Sites will have to pay to use it. It is NOT > FREE, just 'on hold' until adoption becomes widespread and enforcement > more practical. When that happens guess who makes billions? Nokia and > Microsoft. > > These companies have no right to be distrupting this list and modifying > the standard to their whims. Their business interests are of no interest > here. This is a PUBLIC standard, not a proprietry one. > > Put the OGG reference back in the HTML5 draft, exactly as it was, as it > was originally agreed, as many have requested - AS IS APPROPRIATE! > > Shannon > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Keep emotionally active. Cater to your favorite neurosis. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities
> > Wait...Apple and Nokia posit an potential patent threat as justification > to remove the text, but patent and other "Intellectual Property" reasons > aren't justification for putting it back? > > Great double standard there. Yeah, agreed. It amazes me how so far the discussion has been incredibly double-standarded and slippery. This discussion amounts to "we can't paint the wall green because then it would be green" with a few tangents here and there. Fully agreed with you, Jeff. > As a show of good faith, revert the text, then have the discussion. If > a better solution is found that meets everyone's criteria, hey great. > But reverting the text to what it was can be considered a show of good > faith since, clearly, the text that was put in its place can't stand for > the spec to go to fruition. Yes, do us the honor of restoring the text in good faith while the discussion continues. It's not like you're gonna ratify HTML5 tomorrow as a sour Christmas present anyway. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ You'll never see all the places, or read all the books, but fortunately, they're not all recommended. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[whatwg] Technical answers (was Re: several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5)
> We'd be better off discussing technical issues that would inform a > decision; questions like > a) what compression ratio/quality is needed? Is h.261 'good enough'? I think you should be thinking in terms of user experience, not just compression ratio. If I put my "user" shoes, all I know is that with my 400 kbits per second at home, I can watch YouTube videos without having to buffer first, whereas with Google Video, oops. Don't fall into the trap of consumer net access because those links are INCREDIBLY overcrowded, once you start authoring HTML5 content with multimedia, you're going to see a massive suicide increase in Comcast's and Verizon's call centers. > What about audio? Ten to one is customarily stereo, CD quality in contemporary alternatives like AAC and Vorbis. Extremely demanding people could expect 2:1 with lossless compression. > b) do we need alpha support? I think it would be nice. You could honestly build amazing interactive worlds with alpha-enabled video. None of the video compression technologies that I know of support alpha -- but I'm not much of an expert in video compression anyway. > c) what audio compression level is needed? Is IMA 4:1 good enough? Most certainly not. Have you heard how IMA ADPCM sounds and what humongous files it creates? > Could we live with uncompressed PCM? Sure we could. In our hard disks as an intermediate step between ripping and encoding. Not online, not if you want Senator Stevens to get his internets on time. > d) what container format features are needed? Incremental files? > Seekability and indexing? (These tend to be in conflict, by the way). I think it's much more reasonable to prefer seekability and indexing to incremental files. After all, users want to seek much more often than they want the benefits of incremental files. > e) what audio channel count is needed? N. Mono, stereo, 5.1, 6.1, cater to Ambisonics if you need to. But the minimum requirement for basic online audio should be stereo, and beyond that, you would have to go with one of the encumbered traditional Dolby or THX speaker distributions. Oh, it's not just the channel count that is a problem here, but how you encode that info on the wire, and how the speakers are distributed, and how you downmix in the presence of a less-than-ideal listening environment. Take a look at Ambisonics, it's rather appropriate because it offers N routes between stereo/mono/Dolby 5.1, et al, while encoding the audio in a speaker position independent way. And I think the patents expired long ago. > f) what access protocols should be supported? One assumes http; > what about rtsp/rtp? authentication in rtsp? which rtsp? shoutcast? Anything that could be hyperlinked may be supported, but a minimum of http: should be there. Ideally you'd want FTP and RTSP. Shoutcast is, as far as I understand it to be, over HTTP so there you go. > > I am sure there are many other questions... Not that I can think of before having dinner :-) -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities
Agreed. Let's just return the text, put a MUST in place of the SHOULD, and continue the discussion. If you find your solution within one year, great, s/Ogg/Yoursolution/g. If not, bite the bullet and go ahead. El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Jeff McAdams escribió: > Dave Singer wrote: > > At 19:04 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote: > >> Dave Singer wrote: > >>> At 13:45 -0500 11/12/07, Fernando wrote: > >>>> Please reconsider the decision to exclude the recommendation of the > >>> > >>> Theora/OGG Vorbis codec in HTML 5 guidelines. > >>> > >>> This entire discussion is founded on a major misapprehension: that > >>> there has been a decision, and that decision was to exclude. This is > >>> simply not true; there is no decision either to include or exclude. > >>> There is a recognition that work is needed. > >>> > >>> I and others have spent a great deal of time on this problem already, > >>> working with a number of people, including the W3C staff. Many of > >>> us -- > >>> maybe all of us -- agree we need to find a solution that enables broad > >>> interoperability and is in accord with w3c and web practices. We have > >>> not yet reached consensus on having found it. That's all. > >> > >> A decision was made to move away from using the ogg family of > >> technologies. > > > > No. > > Yes. > > > A decision was made to have the text reflect the facts that (a) no-one > > is happy with a 'should' and (b) that work is ongoing to find a solution > > (which might be Ogg, or something else). That's all. > > The text was changed from a SHOULD implement Ogg et all to a completely > non-descriptive text. > > If things are up in the air, then why change it? Just leave the text > and have the discussion. If a better solution is arrived at, *then* > change the text of the spec. What need is there to change the current > draft of the spec away from ogg et all? That indicates a move away from > ogg et al by this body, and you're surprised why people get up in arms? > > Sorry, again, doesn't pass the smell test. > > >> While not a final decision, it is a threatening decision > >> to those of us that value freedom and openness and don't appreciate > >> being screwed by big companies. > >> > >> Listen to what the people are saying. > > > > Oh, I am listening. It's by no means clear that the Ogg crowd is at > > all. I'm also spending efforts working on finding a solution. I don't > > count lamenting "I want my ogg" on this list as spending efforts at all. > > Maybe you should listen to the meta-argument, then. > > I'm sick and tired of getting screwed by big companies (including > Apple), and I will *not* quietly accept it. > > If the text is changed to move away from a free and open solution to > something that is going to be encumbered, you better believe I'm going > to be up in arms about it, and I will not apologize for it. This change > is exactly that sort of change. > > I would much rather Apple not implement HTML5 at all, so I can call > Apple out on it in the marketplace, than to let an encumbered technology > be ensconced in a standard like HTML5. And, in the past, these exact > sorts of maneuvering is exactly the sort of behavior that has led to big > companies getting end-user-screwing technologies ensconced into specs > and standards. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Among the lucky, you are the chosen one. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Ogg Vorbis / Theora vote
Well, I admit you're at least somewhat right. On a totally unrelated but not so unrelated matter, I'd like to see the efforts to form a single source tree for KHTML/WebKit to march on faster. (Then when George Staikos or another KDE guy implements Theora you can offer it for free to your customers :-D ) (Sorry, I couldn't resist the joke. I'm sure you'll be able to patch that functionality out if someone makes a credible threat against Theora.) El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Dave Singer escribió: > At 13:20 -0500 11/12/07, John Lianoglou wrote: > >Apologies to those that are, in fact, irritated by us Ogg-supporting > >lobbiers; please understand that we are all simply motivated by our > > interest in a vision to keep the Internet a free, vendor-neutral > > publishing landscape, to the greatest degree practically feasible. > > This is a goal we at Apple, at least, share; and I believe also many > others do as well. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Don't read any sky-writing for the next two weeks. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities
> A decision was made to have the text reflect the facts that (a) > no-one is happy with a 'should' and (b) that work is ongoing to find > a solution (which might be Ogg, or something else). That's all. I may not be a W3C chair, but I'm pretty sure that if I disagree, then using "no-one" in your sentence is a lie. And I'm not the only one. > >Listen to what the people are saying. > > Oh, I am listening. It's by no means clear that the Ogg crowd is at > all. I'm also spending efforts working on finding a solution. I > don't count lamenting "I want my ogg" on this list as spending > efforts at all. That's because you already found your solution: H.264. Except that it's not an option. Face it, "spending efforts on finding a solution" is a red herring, because if any codec was both good and patent-unencumbered (besides the Ogg technology family, of course): - you'd already heard about it - you could still wave your hands and say "nooo, it might be torpedoed by a submarine patent" It's just stalling. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ It usually takes more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu speech. -- Mark Twain signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities
Well, consensus is going to be hard to find, with the conflicts of interest at play here. And all that we want is that Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora, being the ideal balance between least-encumbered and technically sufficient options, be mentioned in the document that will be read by millions -- even if it wasn't a SHOULD but a MAY or an ITWOULDBENICE. They more than deserve it. So, here's a challenge. Does Apple really *only* want to be able to claim SHOULD conformance? Reinstate the paragraph and put MAY instead of SHOULD, then go crazy authoring H.264 content for the VIDEO tag. That resolution lets you have SHOULD conformance. If you refuse, we know that it's a market and monopoly thing. If you accept, we know you were being straightforward all along. El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Dave Singer escribió: > At 13:45 -0500 11/12/07, Fernando wrote: > >Please reconsider the decision to exclude the recommendation of the > > Theora/OGG Vorbis codec in HTML 5 guidelines. > > This entire discussion is founded on a major misapprehension: that > there has been a decision, and that decision was to exclude. This is > simply not true; there is no decision either to include or exclude. > There is a recognition that work is needed. > > I and others have spent a great deal of time on this problem already, > working with a number of people, including the W3C staff. Many of us > -- maybe all of us -- agree we need to find a solution that enables > broad interoperability and is in accord with w3c and web practices. > We have not yet reached consensus on having found it. That's all. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. -- William Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed
> The text you replaced the requirements with [1] includes the > requirement that the codec: > > # is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies > > Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a > loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the > choice of codec for any reason it chooses, potentially including not > wanting the element to succeed in creating an open standard > for video on the Web? There is no objective measurement possible for that requirement, except the lone yes/no of something being unpatented and really old. We can't make videos play on Web pages using forks, hammers and chairs. And even under those circumstances, patent trolls do get stuff that shouldn't be patentable patented, so living in fear of patent trolls is absurd. Wanna know what happened to the last troll that attacked free software? Ask Darl McBride. Everyone is under the possibility of constant attack from trolls. But, anyway, we've already established that the fear of patents is just an excuse to take Ogg out. Other sensible reasons remain to prefer other technologies, and the standard as it was written before did cater to those technologies as well. > > -David > > [1] In full, the text is: > # It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could > # support the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that > # satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is known to > # not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is > # compatible with the open source development model, that is of > # sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional > # submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing > # issue and this section will be updated once more information is > # available. > from > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/section-video.h >tml#video -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Hope that the day after you die is a nice day. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
> Maybe you should take some time to read the previous discussions of > this issue before making such inflammatory accusations. What accusation, David? That Apple would prefer people not use Ogg to author Web content, for reasons which are purely monetary in nature? I only wrapped it in humor! > > Fear of submarine patents is only one reason Apple is not interested > in Theora. There are several other reasons. H.264 is a technically > superior solution to Theora. This is unarguably TRUE. > Ignoring IP issues, there would be no > reason to pick Theora over H.264. Everyone wants an open freely > implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora should > automatically be that codec. Agreed. That's also why the standard didn't say MUST. It said SHOULD. > About the only argument I've heard in > favor of Theora is that "it's open", but that is an argument based > purely on IP and not on technical merits. However, I can make a pretty compelling case showing that Vorbis is at least on par in performance with AAC. So at least for Vorbis, it's not just freedom but actual results. > If you consider mobile devices that want to browse the Web, then > depending on the constraints of the device, a hardware solution may be > required to view video with any kind of reasonable performance. A > mandate of Theora is effectively dictating to those mobile vendors > that they have to create custom hardware that can play back Theora > video. Given that such devices may already need a hardware solution > for existing video like H.264, it seems unreasonable for HTML5 to > mandate what hardware a vendor has to develop just to browse Web video > on a mobile device. You are writing a very lengthy paragraph founded on a lie. Where did the standard mandate that Theora be required for conformance? Because I read SHOULD, not MUST. And everyone's gonna be *years* until they're up to MUST-level conformance to be concerned about the cost of hardware (Moore helps here). > Or put another way, imagine that GIF was an open format but PNG was IP- > encumbered. Would you really want to limit the Web to displaying only > GIFs just because it was the only open image format available? What a way to build a strawman! Who or where says that the Web is going to be limited to Theora? It says SHOULD, man, SHOULD. You're free to use H.264 if you want, and I'm pretty sure that your devices will still sell like crack on the street. > Technical arguments are relevant here, so take some time to consider > them before accusing people of having shady ulterior motives. In fact, I honestly wish there were only technical arguments to be made. This discussion would be much, much simpler. > > dave > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ You will not be elected to public office this year. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5
there are no > other codecs out there that are not encumbered. This is the whole > reason for existence of Theora, at least at the time, and I don't know > that this has changed in the few years since it was designed. > > If you want a baseline that everyone can implement without being > encumbered, then the answer is Theora. > > > Small companies aren't targetted by patent trolls. Only big (really big) > > companies are. It's a big-company concern, just like "no per-user > > licensing" is a small-company concern. That's just the reality of the > > situation, it's not intended to be a bias. > > Except that it very clearly is biasing the decision making process so > far. The language was changed because the big companies weren't > comfortable with it, moving in the direction of screwing the little guy. > That is bias. > > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: > >>> It is intended to be exactly truthful, actually. I apologise if you > >>> believe this to be fear mongering. > >> > >> Well, the intentions certainly didn't match the actions. > > > > I am sorry you perceive them this way. > > As witnessed by the large influx of people on the list that you > referenced (admittedly including myself) that are expressing very strong > similar opinions, perhaps you should reconsider whether this is merely a > perception. I think its very clear that its not just perception. I > think you're being played, Ian. Revert the text and be done with this. > > If you really want this to be a baseline codec that everyone can > implement, revert the text and then change it to MUST. > > >> Fact: Vorbis is the *only* codec whose patent status has been widely > >> researched, nearly to exhaustion. > > > > Sadly there's really no such thing as an exhaustive patent search. > > No, but that there was an extensive attempt made make Vorbis and Theora > much safer than the alternatives. > > >> Let me rephrase your statement to be worded in a more *honest* way. > >> Vorbis provides the perfect escape for proprietary audio prisons. > >> Apple and Nokia are having problems with consumers and authors actually > >> waking up and using free, non-patent-encumbered, widely available, > >> unrestricted, non-proprietary technology. Since Vorbis directly > >> threatens their ability to sell traps, they are extorting your > >> compliance with threats of not supporting the HTML5 spec. > > > > I don't know what you base your conclusions on, but I assure you that to > > the best of my knowledge, that's not the current situation. I have been > > in this business a long time, and I've been played for a fool many times > > before. This particular issue does not have the tell-tale signs of > > players acting in bad faith. Indeed, Apple employees have probably done > > more to resolve this issue than anyone else so far. > > Really? And Nokia calling Ogg "proprietary" doesn't raise any red > flags? (merely an example) Perhaps you should take a vacation from > this, Ian, clearly your bovine excrement meter is broken. > > > and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large > > companies. > > You've created the bias in the premise. By including the word > "additional", there, you have artificially limited the field to codecs > which are already implemented by the large companies. That is not > progress, that is one great big, huge, gigantic step backward. > > That is untenable, and is a large part of the basis for the outrage from > the public that you're currently on the receiving end of. > > > The whole point of the change was to make the point that we need > > something that will not screw you. Ogg isn't a solution, as it won't be > > implemented by Apple and Microsoft. If we require Ogg, then what will > > happen is the big players will support something else, then that will > > become the de-facto standard, and you will get screwed. What we _want_ is > > for everyone to support the same codec. We don't get that by having a > > SHOULD-level requirement for Ogg. > > Then make it a MUST-level requirement. There is no other solution. If > we give in to the big companies trying to screw us during the spec > design, then we're surely screwed, by design. At least, if we make the > spec MUST-level for Theora, we can bring pressure to bear on Microsoft, > Apple, Nokia, and whoever else by shining a spotlight on their > non-conformance to the spec. > > If we change the spec to acceed to
Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5
y be. > > Then revert the text and make it a MUST. As far as I know, there are no > other codecs out there that are not encumbered. This is the whole > reason for existence of Theora, at least at the time, and I don't know > that this has changed in the few years since it was designed. > > If you want a baseline that everyone can implement without being > encumbered, then the answer is Theora. > > > Small companies aren't targetted by patent trolls. Only big (really big) > > companies are. It's a big-company concern, just like "no per-user > > licensing" is a small-company concern. That's just the reality of the > > situation, it's not intended to be a bias. > > Except that it very clearly is biasing the decision making process so > far. The language was changed because the big companies weren't > comfortable with it, moving in the direction of screwing the little guy. > That is bias. > > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: > >>> It is intended to be exactly truthful, actually. I apologise if you > >>> believe this to be fear mongering. > >> > >> Well, the intentions certainly didn't match the actions. > > > > I am sorry you perceive them this way. > > As witnessed by the large influx of people on the list that you > referenced (admittedly including myself) that are expressing very strong > similar opinions, perhaps you should reconsider whether this is merely a > perception. I think its very clear that its not just perception. I > think you're being played, Ian. Revert the text and be done with this. > > If you really want this to be a baseline codec that everyone can > implement, revert the text and then change it to MUST. > > >> Fact: Vorbis is the *only* codec whose patent status has been widely > >> researched, nearly to exhaustion. > > > > Sadly there's really no such thing as an exhaustive patent search. > > No, but that there was an extensive attempt made make Vorbis and Theora > much safer than the alternatives. > > >> Let me rephrase your statement to be worded in a more *honest* way. > >> Vorbis provides the perfect escape for proprietary audio prisons. > >> Apple and Nokia are having problems with consumers and authors actually > >> waking up and using free, non-patent-encumbered, widely available, > >> unrestricted, non-proprietary technology. Since Vorbis directly > >> threatens their ability to sell traps, they are extorting your > >> compliance with threats of not supporting the HTML5 spec. > > > > I don't know what you base your conclusions on, but I assure you that to > > the best of my knowledge, that's not the current situation. I have been > > in this business a long time, and I've been played for a fool many times > > before. This particular issue does not have the tell-tale signs of > > players acting in bad faith. Indeed, Apple employees have probably done > > more to resolve this issue than anyone else so far. > > Really? And Nokia calling Ogg "proprietary" doesn't raise any red > flags? (merely an example) Perhaps you should take a vacation from > this, Ian, clearly your bovine excrement meter is broken. > > > and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large > > companies. > > You've created the bias in the premise. By including the word > "additional", there, you have artificially limited the field to codecs > which are already implemented by the large companies. That is not > progress, that is one great big, huge, gigantic step backward. > > That is untenable, and is a large part of the basis for the outrage from > the public that you're currently on the receiving end of. > > > The whole point of the change was to make the point that we need > > something that will not screw you. Ogg isn't a solution, as it won't be > > implemented by Apple and Microsoft. If we require Ogg, then what will > > happen is the big players will support something else, then that will > > become the de-facto standard, and you will get screwed. What we _want_ is > > for everyone to support the same codec. We don't get that by having a > > SHOULD-level requirement for Ogg. > > Then make it a MUST-level requirement. There is no other solution. If > we give in to the big companies trying to screw us during the spec > design, then we're surely screwed, by design. At least, if we make the > spec MUST-level for Theora, we can bring pressure to bear on Microsoft, > Apple, Nokia, and whoever else by shining a spotlight on their &g
Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities
I would just like to say: Me too. The quoted letter is a sensible address to the bigger problem underlying our "difference of opinion". El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Fernando escribió: > Please reconsider the decision to exclude the recommendation of the > Theora/OGG Vorbis codec in HTML 5 guidelines. > > I expect that in a sophisticated group such as this one: > > * skepticism with how well the interests of powerful corporations match > those of individuals that are not their employees or shareholders; > > * an understanding of the economic and civil rights damage being done to > the rights of individuals by proprietary formats; and > > * an understanding of the wisdom behind the original wording of this > portion of the document; > > Will enable you to see the need to readmit common sense and wisdom into > HTML 5 by including OGG. > > Having said that, I want to illustrate how open standards or the lack > thereof can affect someone with a disability such as myself. > > While there have been large corporations that have adopted relatively > inclusive designs in their technology, i.e. designs that enable rather than > block persons who are blind or have other disabilities; this has often > taken place only after legal threats or actual litigation from government > agencies and other groups. > > The problem is however, that legislative tools are not always available to > citizens, are often outdated, too slow, or inadequate to do the work that > is truly the responsibility of groups such as this one. > > When a large corporation ignores the needs of persons with disabilities in > realms where open standards prevail, we have options. > > It bothered me but it didn't stop me when in the 1990s, there were a number > of inaccessible e-mail clients for users of screen reading software such as > myself. Blind users could always use alternative products such as Pine or > Emacs to handle e-mail because the e-mail protocol is open. > > This is not the case with proprietary formats. In formats such as those > promoted by Microsoft, Apple, and, to my surprise, Nokia, any and all > groups, be those persons with disabilities, or those who in any other way > do not fit the user profile being targeted by those corporations are > vulnerable to being left out. > > Well, I should clarify that, they are not just vulnerable to being left out > but in fact, they are often left out. > > Unfortunately this is not about the right to play video games, although > there is an entire other conversation there, but the right to access > information that is increasingly central to the educational options, > professional opportunities, and social avenues available to everyone. Allow > every human brain its rights to develop, contribute, and participate fully > regardless of its race, economic profile, the characteristics of its body, > or the computing platform it has access to. > > This is not to say that an open standard guarantees access, but it > facilitates it greatly; because from what I have observed and experienced, > there have always been and there will always be those who value inclusion > over control, competition over rent-seeking behavior, and courage over > moral laziness. > > Thank you for taking the above into account. > > Fernando H. F. Botelho -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ You're currently going through a difficult transition period called "Life." signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5
hat is known to not > require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the > open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be > usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large > companies. BMP? MJPEG? WAV? > The whole point of the change was to make the point that we need something > that will not screw you. Ogg isn't a solution, as it won't be implemented > by Apple and Microsoft. Honestly, if Apple and Microsoft don't implement Ogg, it will *GUARANTEED* not screw me. If you put it in the spec, they will have to implement it or -- failing that -- there are simple JS-based fallback solutions that are perfectly degradable. So there is NO excuse. But let's not kid ourselves. It's not that Apple and MS won't implement it. You're afraid that they will activelly work against moving HTML5 into a state of recommendation. > If we require Ogg, then what will happen is the > big players will support something else, then that will become the > de-facto standard, and you will get screwed. What we _want_ is for > everyone to support the same codec. We don't get that by having a > SHOULD-level requirement for Ogg. Well, tough luck, you can't. The next-best option is Ogg, that favors small independent content producers. But no-siree, we can't have that, can we? > We know that all standards-compatible browsers will support the standards, > but what about all the other browsers? Haha, did you just covertly say "all the not Internet Explorer browsers"? > Surely what we want isn't just for > a small set of browsers to support a codec but for _all_ the browsers to > suppor the same codec. Well, you can't have that because all the big players are aiming their guns at each other with their own tech bets. And now they've collectively aimed a third gun each at Ogg. Note that Ogg has no guns. > Ogg is _a_ choice, which provides freedom for some but not everyone. We > need a codec that works for everyone. Ogg is _a_ choice that provides freedom to the majority of the populace in the world. We need a codec that works for the majority, not for the lucky 1% of the population. > I think that's what everyone wants. The problem is that Ogg is not such a > codec -- Apple, for instance, can't implement Ogg without fear of being > sued. But the other 99% of the world can. > At the end of the day, the browser vendors > have a very effective absolute veto on anything in the browser specs, You mean they have the power to derail a spec? That's something I would have considered before the advent of Mozilla Firefox. > > Really if *anyone* should have any sway here (and I personally think > > that no 1 or 2 companies should) it should be Google lets face it they > > are the largest power on the Internet whether you love em/hate em/dont > > know who they are.. > > I work for Google. :-) I fully agree with the statement of the grandparent. I'm also addressing this letter to you because you *work at Google* and I have the utmost respect for their technical decisions and prowess, plus I still have confidence that they're both large and honest enough to be able to overcome this politicking. I'm really sorry that you have to be the one addressing this conundrum, but it is a matter worth discussing. > > The difference with the "should" is that the browsers who support > > standards will support ogg natively. The fact that big companies like > > nokia etc don't actually use OGG is less my concern, it's more about the > > free developers knowing that ogg will be supported at the users' end. > > But they won't know that, if Apple, for instance, refuse to implement it. I'd implement it on my Web page. I'm sure thousand Web developers would implement it. If Apple refuses to implement the video tag (I highly doubt they'll refuse the ENTIRE spec because it's good, and it would be nonsensical to reject it) I can just include a small JS snippet and it'll prompt the user to download an Ogg runtime. Apple doesn't need to implement it on WebKit -- if I remember correctly most of the work is already done, but I might be mistaken. > I assure you that the change was made in good faith; I (sadly) received no > money for the change. I really wish I had. I'm absolutely certain you didn't receive any sort of bribes (now that would be a bit unbecoming, wouldn't it?). I also know that Nokia and Apple have vowed not to implement part of or the whole HTML5 spec. Carrot and stick. You got no carrot, but you're still getting the stick. > I hope this addresses most of the concerns that are raised. I understand > that some people will see a conspiracy here; naturally I can't really > reassure you that there isn't one, that's the nature of conspiracies. For the record: I don't see a conspiracy. All I see is big interests clearly colluding in the open to further restrict choice for the rest of us. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
Apple and Nokia seem to think that there *are* hamburgers in the moon, and that those hamburgers will cost them billions of dollars in submarine sandwich lawsuits. Of course, that's what they are *saying*. It doesn't take a Feynman or a Chomsky to understand the real reason why they want the Ogg hamburger off HTML5. El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Robert Sayre escribió: > On Dec 11, 2007 1:15 PM, Geoffrey Sneddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So undisclosed patents have been looked at? How? > > Are you *sure* there are no hamburgers on the moon? Have you looked in > every crater? Under every rock? > > This argument is ridiculous. No one can prove a negative, and the > audio/video elements will have poor interoperability because of it. > Maybe the spec should say that directly. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Reply hazy, ask again later. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] OGG in HTML5
> > Where is this enforcement of any proprietary format? The note in the > spec absolutely forbids such a thing. And when has any version of HTML > ever enforced a proprietary format (which is what I assume you mean by > "this time")? Hint: it's NOT in the HTML5 spec. > > > -- > Geoffrey Sneddon > <http://gsnedders.com/> -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ You will be winged by an anti-aircraft battery. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
Charles, I find Opera's efforts commendable. More organizations should follow Opera's lead in this direction, just as they've followed Opera's lead in several other innovative efforts. I trust your comment in favor of Ogg is not just "because Opera already has it" (which, by the way, proves technical feasibility beyond a shadow of doubt) but because Ogg in HTML5 is the right thing to do. > We're disappointed to see the spec go in this direction. I think it is a > backward step. Me too. > There is no voting in WHAT-WG, and there is not much in W3C, but there is > a reasonable process there that hopefully allows for this stuff to go back > into the specification, unless we find a better alternative (i.e. still > free). Let's keep hoping. Well, instead of hoping, maybe we can draw more attention to this issue so public pressure helps us do the job. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Don't you wish you had more energy... or less ambition? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] OGG in HTML5
Yup, refreshing perspective. How about we go ENFORCE our free format instead
of having proprietary companies ENFORCE their proprietary formats this time?
It'd certainly be a change of zeitgeist
But I'd be happy with "should". At least for now.
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive."
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, "A Study in Scarlet"
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
Chris Double. That's the guy who concocted Theora support into the video tag. Check this link out: http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/video_svg_demo.ogg It's not only on HTML, as you can see. SVG also! El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Geoffrey Sneddon escribió: > On 11 Dec 2007, at 19:04, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: > > You are right. My bad. Why don't we write in the spec? > > > > "Examples of widely recognized free-for-use audio formats are Ogg > > Vorbis and > > FLAC" > > It was intended as meaning "recognized" in the sense of browsers > recognising them. No currently shipping browser recognises either Ogg > Vorbis or FLAC. > > > The answer to that question is that Apple and Nokia don't want us to > > use Ogg > > Vorbis because they sell their own, encumbered tech and we would be > > less > > likely to license (read: give them monopoly rents) their tech. The > > very > > MENTION of Ogg in the spec threatens their monopoly rents, and > > that's why > > they had it removed. > > > > It's just dollars. > > Apple does not license Apple Lossless to anyone else AFAIK, and the > only standards that MPEG-LA collects money for that Apple receives any > share of whatsoever is "MPEG-4 Systems" and IEEE 1394 (Firewire). > Neither of these have anything to do with audio/video codecs. Saying > that Apple has a financial interest in wanting MPEG codecs mandated in > HTML 5 is totally untrue. > > > -- > Geoffrey Sneddon > <http://gsnedders.com/> -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ If you think last Tuesday was a drag, wait till you see what happens tomorrow! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
> It was intended as meaning "recognized" in the sense of browsers > recognising them. No currently shipping browser recognises either Ogg > Vorbis or FLAC. If I use EMBED on Konqueror pointing to an Ogg Vorbis file, I get a nice player with streaming and everything. Konqueror's shipping, isn't it? There is at least *one* browser that already supports, through GStreamer, Ogg in tags. I'd give you the link but it apparently fell off the end of Planet GNOME so I can't find it... Now hold on, it's not shipping, but that doesn't mean it won't be shipping tomorrow. What you actually wanted to say (but couldn't/didn't/were unwilling to) is: "No currently shipping browser by any of the major proprietary software vendors support Ogg Vorbis or FLAC". And the reason they don't support it is because they have colluded against Ogg Vorbis or FLAC because they free consumers from proprietary prisons -- a development that is bad news for monopoly rent-seekers. It's not just that proprietary browser vendors don't give a rat's arse about Ogg technology -- on the contrary, they're actively undermining it, as evidenced by this outrageous act of seemingly-neutral (but in reality pro-proprietary) "editing" of the spec. > > > > It's just dollars. > > Apple does not license Apple Lossless to anyone else AFAIK, OK. So they sell fewer iPods because iPods don't play Ogg Vorbis without Rockbox. Same outcome. > and the > only standards that MPEG-LA collects money for that Apple receives any > share of whatsoever is "MPEG-4 Systems" and IEEE 1394 (Firewire). > Neither of these have anything to do with audio/video codecs. Saying > that Apple has a financial interest in wanting MPEG codecs mandated in > HTML 5 is totally untrue. I didn't say Apple wanted MPEG codecs mandated in HTML 5, so don't put words in my mouth or attempt to smoke-and-mirrors us with straw men. This is either a fumble on your part or an attempt to derail the discussion into wreckland. I said Apple doesn't want Ogg Vorbis because they don't control the tech, and because they would very much rather have consumers "prefer" (in the sense of being screwed with no choice) DRM-encumbered AAC (note it's not the codec, but the controlling of the consumer that matters here). > > > -- > Geoffrey Sneddon > <http://gsnedders.com/> -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Today is what happened to yesterday. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
No, I won't pay. It's not my problem, and they can foot the bill. If they were wise, they would fund patent reform efforts as the most enduring way to prevent these disasters from continually arising. But they won't because they also benefit from the patent racket. And even if Apple gets sued for patent infringement, that doesn't mean that the suit has merits -- experts already looked at the evidence surrounding Vorbis and patentability, and unanimously said "it's clear". > > That's not what Dave is meaning: If Apple gets sued for patent > infringement, will you pay however many billion USD they have to? If > you truly believe there are no patents covering Ogg/etc. then you can > safely agree knowing that you'll never have to give away any of your > money. > > > -- > Geoffrey Sneddon > <http://gsnedders.com/> -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Q: How was Thomas J. Watson buried? A: 9 edge down. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
You are right. My bad. Why don't we write in the spec? "Examples of widely recognized free-for-use audio formats are Ogg Vorbis and FLAC" The answer to that question is that Apple and Nokia don't want us to use Ogg Vorbis because they sell their own, encumbered tech and we would be less likely to license (read: give them monopoly rents) their tech. The very MENTION of Ogg in the spec threatens their monopoly rents, and that's why they had it removed. It's just dollars. El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Darin Adler escribió: > On Dec 11, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: > > Where would we be today if the HTML spec didn't specify jpg, gif, > > and png as baseline standards for the image tag? > > The HTML spec doesn't do that. > > It just says, "Examples of widely recognized image formats include > GIF, JPEG, and PNG." > > http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#h-13.2 > > -- Darin -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. -- J. R. R. Tolkien signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Dave Singer escribió: > I'm sure that many people would be happy to see a mandate if someone > were willing to offer an indemnity against risk here. You seem quite > convinced there is no risk; are you willing to offer the indemnity? No. Unlike Apple, I don't have a huge patent portfolio. My patent count reaches the awesome number of *zero*. Would you be willing to offer patent indemnity to unlicensed users of your Apple AAC audio format? Because I fail to see why leaving users without a free choice for audio *helps* things. I dunno, maybe I'm just dumb as a rock. > > Large companies (Nokia, Microsoft, and Apple) have expressed anxiety, > and are asking (among other things) that an independent analysis be > done. The W3C staff are, I believe, actively working on the issue. > I'm sure that they would be pleased to consider whatever background > material you can offer them. > > I fail to see how asking for an analysis of the problem is giving > anyone "the shaft", since no decision has yet been even offered let > alone reached. The fact that no decision has been finalized is somewhat relieving, because it means we can still revert to the pro-free stance. > > Did you read the piece that I edited from the discussions at the HTML > meeting? No. I just recently enlisted here. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
I actually think this Slashdot comment summarizes the sentiment perfectly: "Methinks you are being a bit myopic here. Where would we be today if the HTML spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the image tag? Can you imagine a huge mishmash of competing proprietary image standards, many of which wouldn't even render in free software browsers like Firefox? That would be a nightmare, but unfortunately, that's what's currently happening with video. Much like the image standard in HTML means that any browser can display anything in an image tag, so too must the video standard in HTML guarantee that any browser can display anything in a video tag. That's what the proposed specification is about." Exactly. For audio, Ogg Vorbis should be the baseline standard. Companies are free to implement their own technology and installable kits or redistribution agreements that allow people to use their tech on their computers. And for video, likewise but replace Vorbis for Theora. Otherwise, let's start preparing for 1995 and "To view this page, you need to install this piece of crapware" all over again. I lived that (together with Windows 95, which in all fairness was rather good compared to the alternatives -- thank god for Linux). I don't want to experience it all over again, especially since I know that even today, that crapware isn't even gonna be made for Linux, and I'm going to be screwed again. Ian, revert. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know. -- Mark Twain signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
le, unrestricted, non-proprietary technology. Since Vorbis directly threatens their ability to sell traps, they are extorting your compliance with threats of not supporting the HTML5 spec. If your friends only "help" you after they've blackmailed you, I suggest you look for new friends. > I assure you that your needs are not being > forgotten. Indeed, the very first requirement now listed in the spec is > directly related to catering for independent authors. > > I hope this explains the reason behind the recent change and that you see > why the change was necessary and is not a step backwards. I assure you > that efforts are being made to address this properly. It doesn't. The effort that would most effectively address these issues would be a "patch -r" on the related spec revision, combined with a polite mail: "no, Nokia, no, Apple, we're very sorry but you are wrong and we're not going to let you break the spec's legs before it's even born". Ian, *revert*. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Beware of a dark-haired man with a loud tie. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
Allow me to be the voice of the small Web developer -- which I consider to be the foundation of the World Wide Web. In reference to: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142&to=1143 The recent removal of the mention of Ogg in HTML5 and the subsequent replacement of its paragraph with the weasel-worded paragraph that would make Minitrue bust their collective shirt buttons in pride: It would be helpful for interoperability if all+ browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known+ codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is+ known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is+ compatible with the open source development model, that is of+ sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional+ submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing issue+ and this section will be updated once more information is+ available. is a preposterous and gross mischaracterization of fact (dare I say lie). At the very least, it's FUD. It pains me to state what is and has always been public knowledge, and is being intentionally ignored just to "get the spec published": - The Xiph developers were extremely zealous and almost fiduciarily diligent in researching all possible patent threats to Vorbis technology, and for more than a year they found none -- they even did the research *before* beginning to code, explicitly to avoid submarine patents. I know, because I was subscribed to their mailing list and read status updates of this research, practically at the start of the project. I also know that big-name software houses and media players manufacture products with Vorbis technology, and none of them have been sued. It's been what, seven years now? - The Theora codec has had its patents practically relinquished by On3 with a perpetual royalty-free license. - Ogg and its audio/video codec technologies are the ONLY free software media technologies with implementations widely available on all consumer computing platforms -- from WM codecs to Linux DLLs, passing through the entire range of hardware (floating-point and fixed-point) and OSes. - Without guaranteed Ogg support (whose integration in user agents I think I already established to be sort of a weekend-level junior programmer project at NO COST, due to the ready availability of the technology in all platforms), authors *will be* forced to use patent-encumbered technology. Remember MP3? Well, with HTML5 it's 1997 all over again. Ian, revert. This compromise on basic values is unacceptable, *whatever* the practical reasons you have deemed to compromise for. If you don't revert, you will be giving us independent authors the shaft. And we will remember it forever. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/ GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ Someone is speaking well of you. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
