On Mar 26, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 11:31 -0700, Kevin Marks wrote:
Are you talking container or codecs here? AVI is a significant
container format, with some variant of MPEG4 codecs in.
My point was that the MPEG4 standard, including both its c
On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 11:31 -0700, Kevin Marks wrote:
>
>
> On 3/23/07, Christian F.K. Schaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 08:12 -0700, Kevin Calhoun wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
> >
> > > MPEG4 adoption to the
Kevin Marks schrieb:
> Now, if you want a fallback standard that is genuinely widely
> interoperating without patent issues, you could pick QuickTime with JPEG
> video frames and uncompressed audio. Millions of digital cameras support
> this format already, as do all quicktime implementations back
On 3/23/07, Christian F.K. Schaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 08:12 -0700, Kevin Calhoun wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
>
> > MPEG4 adoption to the web has been poor from my point of view. Today
> > I'd
> > guess the absolute king in marketshare i
On Mar 23, 2007, at 8:29 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
Kevin Calhoun schrieb:
Just a quick correction here: QuickTime does support the MPEG-4
container format.
Okay, thanks for pointing that out so confusion doesn't spread.
When thinking of QuickTime I was mostly thinking of older .mov files
that
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 08:12 -0700, Kevin Calhoun wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
>
> > MPEG4 adoption to the web has been poor from my point of view. Today
> > I'd
> > guess the absolute king in marketshare is Flash video, then following
> > Windows Media, then followed
Kevin Calhoun schrieb:
> Just a quick correction here: QuickTime does support the MPEG-4
> container format.
Okay, thanks for pointing that out so confusion doesn't spread.
When thinking of QuickTime I was mostly thinking of older .mov files
that you can still see floating around here and there a
On Mar 23, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
MPEG4 adoption to the web has been poor from my point of view. Today
I'd
guess the absolute king in marketshare is Flash video, then following
Windows Media, then followed by QuickTime (that may carry MPEG4... but
the container is not MPEG) and
Also sprach Bjoern Hoehrmann:
> > > the SVG 1.2 WD requires support for Ogg Vorbis:
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-SVG12-20041027/media.html
> >And as Håkon Wium Lie
> >pointed out in another email, the latest SVG standard already mandates
> >Vorbis support, so half of what is needed
I am not denying the need to examine the legal situation when
deciding on our attitude to the codec question. I am denying that
the situation is so unclear that a person of ordinary intelligence
(and we have many people smarter than that) cannot understand the
shape of it and make working
I defer on the legal side, i really do,
On 23 Mar 2007, at 12:18, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
I mean what have we truly achieved if the new VIDEO element means that
web page developers still have to support Windows Media for Windows
clients, MPEG4 for Apple systems and Ogg for Linux/Unix s
Gareth Hay wrote:
At best, we can only conclude that this is a very grey area
throughout different regions of the world, and as such, is not only
out with the scope of this list, but possibly of the spec itself.
That's a non-sequitur.
Why does it not follow?
The fact that there is legal un
Hi,
> Even interoperability at the API and markup level would be a huge
> step forward relative to the current state of web video. While also
> having a single universally implemented codec would also be good,
> that may not presently be feasible.
A huge step that does not go all the way i
On 23 Mar 2007, at 12:09, Gervase Markham wrote:
Gareth Hay wrote:
As has been said, this isn't a legal list.
And a list with "-legal" in the name magically acquires lawyers
with the relevant expertise who are willing to give free advice?
Hang on a minute, next time why don't you tell me
Hi Gareth,
Well my company deals with these issues every day as our main line of
business is codecs and multimedia. Patents only apply to the country
of issue so the UK company could only be sued under US law in your
example. If the UK company have no US presence it would be likely that
the patent
Gareth Hay wrote:
As has been said, this isn't a legal list.
And a list with "-legal" in the name magically acquires lawyers with the
relevant expertise who are willing to give free advice?
At best, we can only conclude that this is a very grey area throughout
different regions of the world
Hi Christian,
My main concern is simply to avoid the issue altogether.
I do agree that patents exist and have been granted, but I just can't
see how they are ever going to be enforced at all.
For example, a patent issued in the US is infringed by a UK company,
where the patent would not be he
Hi Gareth,
This is a strange way of looking at the issue. Once a patent is granted
it is by definition valid and enforceable. It is the people opposing it
who have to prove their non-legality at that point and not the other way
around. So sure a lot of software patents might be challenged around
Hi Bjoern,
There is a w3c policy in place regarding this:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/
Since I assume you knew about that I guess your claim about no guarantee
is more about 'there might be submarine patents', yes this is true. But
there is a major difference to a standard
* Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
>All w3c standards are royalty free and there is no reason why this
>proposal should be different in that regard. And as Håkon Wium Lie
>pointed out in another email, the latest SVG standard already mandates
>Vorbis support, so half of what is needed is already spec
As i said in a previous post, this is a very grey area.[1][2]
So much so that many of the granted patents are being opposed, and
until the outcome of these oppositions, neither one of us can comment
on the true legality of them.
I would suggest backing away from any such areas where softwar
As has been said, this isn't a legal list.
At best, we can only conclude that this is a very grey area
throughout different regions of the world, and as such, is not only
out with the scope of this list, but possibly of the spec itself.
Unless legal advice can be sought from all potential m
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
> This is true of hardware audio decoders, but not hardware video
> decoders, which use dedicated circuit blocks. If Ogg suddenly became
> popular it would likely be a several year pipeline before there were any
> hardware decoders.
I'd say that any hardware player using
It is an Urban Legend that there are no software patents in the EU. True
enough there is no 'EU' software patents, but a lot of member states do
have them. I suggest going the MPEG LA's webpage and looking at the
patent lists they have there for MPEG4. You will notice that a lot of
the patents are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> I actually agree with this -- I think that MPEG-4 already has lots of heavy
> weight behind it and is quite a good format with lots of existing
> implementations. Theora/Vorbis are definitely the upstarts in this; they
> should live and die on their technical merits
Gareth Hay schrieb:
> Not in the EU, no such thing as a software patent.
To my knowledge the MPEG patents are *not* software patents but are what
I know as "Verfahrenspatente" (crudely translated that would be "Method
patents" - anyone knowning the correct term?). Those patents are valid here.
Ho
- Vlad
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:49:00
> To:Håkon Wium Lie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&
Not in the EU, no such thing as a software patent.
On 23 Mar 2007, at 04:55, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
MPEG-4 is proprietary, because it is covered by patents.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CSS is covered by
patents,
HTML is covered by pa
essage-
From: Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:49:00
To:Håkon Wium Lie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Codecs (was Re: Apple Proposal for Timed Media
Elements)
On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Hå
On Mar 22, 2007, at 3:33 AM, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote:
A fallback without a mandated 'minimum' codec is next to worthless.
Standards
with similar goals of interoperability, like DLNA, have ended up
choosing some
mandated codecs (which are all 'older' codecs) and some optional
higher q
On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The technologies I listed _are_ covered by patents, yet they are not
> > proprietary. This seems like a relevant counterexample to your
> > argu
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The technologies I listed _are_ covered by patents, yet they are not
> > proprietary. This seems like a relevant counterexample to your
> > argument.
>
> If I have to pay someone because they ow
On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The technologies I listed _are_
covered by patents, yet they are not proprietary. This seems like a
relevant counterexample to your argument.
If I have to pay someone because they own something, that seems like a
pretty good indicator of a prop
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CSS is covered by
> > patents,
>
> I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you don't [know] anything
> about patents. Many engineers have t
On 3/23/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CSS is covered by patents,
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but you don't anything
about patents. Many engineers have trouble accepting this.
It's not available under royalty free lice
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Robert Sayre wrote:
>
> MPEG-4 is proprietary, because it is covered by patents.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but CSS is covered by patents,
HTML is covered by patents, the DOM is covered by patents, JavaScript is
covered by patents, and so forth. Proprietary
On 3/22/07, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To the extent we have a media platform we want to promote, it is
MPEG-4, a format and codec family that is an ISO standard.
Not a particularly high bar for a Web standard.
This
format family is available in many hardware and software
i
On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:16 AM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
I think having a single baseline codec will make immensely
more
attractive to authors than it otherwise would be. I also believe
from the
point of view of Mozilla (or any other open source project) Theora
is vastly
more attractive than MP
Robert O'Callahan / Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > - Placing requirements on format support would be unprecedented for
> > HTML specifications, which generally leave this up to the UA, with de
> > facto baseline support being decided by the market.
It's not unprecedented in W3C; the SVG 1.2 WD
Maciej Stachowiak schrieb:
> - As mentioned above, some devices may have a much harder time
> implementing Ogg than other codecs. Although a SHOULD-level requirement
> would excuse them, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have it if it might
> be invoked often.
Ogg Theora decoding has been demonstra
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> ON RECOMMENDED OR MANDATED CODECS
>
> We think it is a mistake to require Ogg support, even as a SHOULD-
> level requirement, for several reasons.
>
> - As mentioned above, some devices may have a much harder time
> implementing Ogg than other codecs. Although a SHOUL
On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:29 AM, Martin Atkins wrote:
However, as others have pointed out, MIME types only represent the
container format and not the codecs inside, so content negotiation
would need to be extended to somehow allow audio and video codecs
to be presented in addition to container
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
- Even if all browsers end up supporting Ogg Theora/Vorbis, these are
not the best-compression codecs available. So a large-scale video
content provider that wants to save on bandwidth may wish to provide
H.264/AAC content to those browsers that can handle it, even if
On 3/22/07, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are devices that have a hardware video decoder but not enough
CPU power for even relatively simple video. These could justifiably
omit Ogg under the SHOULD clause.
Is there something that prevents implementation of ogg hardware vid
On Mar 21, 2007, at 9:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
- As mentioned above, some devices may have a much harder time
implementing Ogg than other codecs. Although a SHOULD-level
requirement would excuse them, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have
it if it might be invoked often.
OK, let's assum
- As mentioned above, some devices may have a much harder time
implementing Ogg than other codecs. Although a SHOULD-level
requirement would excuse them, I'm not sure it's appropriate to have
it if it might be invoked often.
OK, let's assume Theora is a bad format for some devices. If someone wa
On 3/21/07, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- Although the Ogg codecs don't have known patents that aren't RF
licensed, it's not completely clear that none of the patents out
there on video/audio encoding apply.
Can we move the patent discussion somewhere else? Not to be rude, but
On Mar 21, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
* I'm concerned about the "type" attribute for content negotiation.
Historically, type attributes are very badly implemented and even
less
reliably used. Conditional fallback in general is badly
implemented and
bug-prone especially in th
48 matches
Mail list logo
