David Hyatt wrote:
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. Ignoring IP issues, there would be no
reason to pick Theora over H.264. Everyone wants an open freely
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, L. David Baron wrote:
In this case, most implementors following the SHOULD and implementing
Theora might help companies whose concern is submarine patents become
more comfortable about shipping Theora, especially if some of the
implementors are companies similar in size or
On Dec 12, 2007 4:08 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Also as Maciej said earlier, we at Apple did not ask that the SHOULD
wording be removed and had stated we could live with it.
dave
On Dec 12, 2007, at 1:12 PM, David Hyatt wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
David Hyatt wrote:
Fear of submarine patents is
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
David Hyatt wrote:
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. Ignoring IP issues, there
would be no
Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 00:21 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
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
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 16:37 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
Well, instead of hoping, maybe we can draw more attention to this issue so
public pressure helps us do the job.
This mailing list is not the best place to draw more attention though.
It seems you are wasting your time
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 13:21 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
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.
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=1142to=1143
The recent removal of the mention of Ogg in HTML5 and the subsequent
replacement of its paragraph with
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?
Large companies (Nokia, Microsoft, and Apple) have expressed anxiety,
and are asking
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142to=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
Ian Hickson schrieb:
The difference is that while Apple (for example) have already assumed the
risk of submarine patents with H.264, they currently have taken no risks
with respect to the aforementioned codecs, and they do not wish to take on
that risk.
Which surely means that they won't
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Maik Merten wrote:
Ian Hickson schrieb:
The difference is that while Apple (for example) have already assumed
the risk of submarine patents with H.264, they currently have taken no
risks with respect to the aforementioned codecs, and they do not wish
to take on
Ian Hickson schrieb:
One would imagine that they would happily take new risks if the rewards
were great (e.g. a better codec). Sadly the rewards in the case of Ogg
Theora are low -- there isn't much content using Theora, and Theora isn't
technically an especially compelling codec compared to
Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 09:27 schrieb Manuel Amador (Rudd-O):
Hello,
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
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote:
The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big players
don't want to take the perceived risk (their decision) they'd still be
100% within the spec.
On 11 Dec 2007, at 18:09, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
Fact: Vorbis is the *only* codec whose patent status has been widely
researched, nearly to exhaustion. Repeating the same FUD over and
over again
(which you just did) may lead the world to believe this to be false,
but it's
TRUE.
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
On Dec 11, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
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
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
On 11 Dec 2007, at 20:12, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
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
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
On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
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
David Hyatt wrote:
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.
And absolutely noone has said that you can't use H.264. You are
perfectly free to do so. What is
On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote:
The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big
players don't want to take the perceived
At 20:21 -0500 11/12/07, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
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
Le 12 déc. 2007 à 03:21, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) a écrit :
Where would we be today if the HTML
spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the
image
tag?
FWIW, in fact the HTML 4.01 spec did NOT mandate any image formats.
On Dec 11, 2007 4:46 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
Yes, it seems that way. Or, at least, the edits to the
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
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
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
On Dec 11, 2007 8:31 PM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is an oxymoron. Ogg is NOT a standard; it
is an open-source effort. H.264 (for example) is
NOT proprietary, but a multi-vendor-developed
international standard.
A multi-vendor effort does not make the codec
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, L. David Baron wrote:
In this case, most implementors following the SHOULD and implementing
Theora might help companies whose concern is submarine patents become
more comfortable about shipping Theora, especially if some of the
implementors are companies similar in
33 matches
Mail list logo
