Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 19:26 -0500, Jeff McAdams pisze:
> 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 th
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 ove
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 HTML
>
> 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 incred
Oliver Hunt wrote:
>> 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.
> That's not unreasonable, but you have yet to give a solid technical
> reason for reverting to the old tex
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.
That's not unreasonable, but you have yet to give a solid technical
reason for reverting to the old text,
so far your only argumen
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
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 foun
> 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
At 19:07 -0500 11/12/07, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
Well, consensus is going to be hard to find, with the conflicts of interest at
play here.
Yes, I agree that consensus will be hard. I have
spent quite some effort so far and I see quite a
bit more to come. I don't think there is much
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: tha
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 -- ev
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
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
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.
>
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 s
16 matches
Mail list logo
