[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: [whatwg] Time and Date (was: Joe Clark's Criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML 5)

2007-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Colin Lieberman wrote: Matthew Raymond wrote: I support the time element for the opposite reason, in fact. I don't want to see authors styling the date format. I'd rather see the date format localized or customized to a user preference. If the author wants it in

[whatwg] address markup (was: Re: time and meter elements)

2007-12-11 Thread Anne van Kesteren
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:03:17 +0100, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Matthew Raymond wrote: A name element may have some uses, such as providing a hook for adding people to your contact list: | address | nameJohn Hopkins/namebr | Phone: (359) 555-1701 | /address

Re: [whatwg] Joe Clark's Criticisms of the WHATWG and HTML 5

2007-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
(Despite the subject line, this thread quickly veered way from Joe's blog post and instead covered a variety of subjects. I have attempts to address the points that had substance and may affect the spec in my replies below. Please let me know if I missed something in this thread that you

Re: [whatwg] simple numbers

2007-12-11 Thread Fabien Meghazi
While I think there is certainly something to be said for the proposal, I don't think there is enough evidence that authors really want or need this. I think we should focus on having CSS support this first. Maybe we could think about a general purpose element which allows formating for

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Maik Merten
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

Re: [whatwg] simple numbers

2007-12-11 Thread Fabien Meghazi
On Dec 11, 2007 12:28 PM, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: tag type=datetime format=/mm/dd HH:MMTue, 11 Dec 2007 10:57:14 GMT/tag Neither of those encodes the date - specifically, the month - in a machine-readable format. We cannot expect all UAs to know every language variant and

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Maik Merten
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

Re: [whatwg] [HTML5] 2.9.16. The samp element

2007-12-11 Thread Christoph Päper
2007-12-11 05:56 Ian Hickson: On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Christoph Paeper wrote: Would the following be inadequate usage according to this specification? a href=foo.imgsampimg src=foo.t.img alt=...//samp/a Yes. The former would be appropriate if a computer output the given image and that

Re: [whatwg] simple numbers

2007-12-11 Thread Christoph Päper
2007-12-11 06:20 Ian Hickson: I considered all the feedback on having a number element (or similar), quoted below. While I think there is certainly something to be said for the proposal, I don't think there is enough evidence that authors really want or need this. JFTR:

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Sven Drieling
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

[whatwg] Removal of Ogg Vorbis and Theora

2007-12-11 Thread Jérôme Marchand
Please, anybody, tell me it's not true.Ogg Vorbis/Theora is perfect for web applications. We need to suport those. Is there anybody else than me that realise it cost 0.75$ US to of patents licensing LEGALLY have an MP3 decoder? I devellop for embedded applications, and it cost 15000$ Just to

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg Vorbis and Theora

2007-12-11 Thread John Saylor
hey let me add my voice to this. having the mention of ogg in the spec is *beneficial* to [wired] humanity. look what open standards have gotten us [the flowering of culture and intelligence on the web]. is this just another manifestation of our ooxml future ... ? i hope not. -- \js

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2007-12-11 Thread Håkon Wium Lie
Ian Hickson 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. I don't think this solves any problem, neither in the short term or the long term. I suggest that the should

[whatwg] *AGAINST* Removal of ogg from spec

2007-12-11 Thread Ryan McLean
After wasting what seemed like an eternity reading what can only be described as pure and unabridged dribble from Nokia. Before I continue to write this responce I would just like to thank Nokia for wasting 20mins of my life. I must express my disappointment that w3c is caving to pressure to

Re: [whatwg] Removal off Ogg technology

2007-12-11 Thread Geoffrey Sneddon
On 11 Dec 2007, at 15:33, Wilson Michaels wrote: In reference to: http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142to=1143 I am a retired software developer who is outraged that Ogg technology has been removed from HTML5. It must be reinstated as a should option so that the world is not held

Re: [whatwg] Removal off Ogg technology

2007-12-11 Thread alex
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. Patents is less

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Charles McCathieNevile
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.

Re: [whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback

2007-12-11 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia 10-12-2007, Pn o godzinie 21:22 -0600, Dimitri Glazkov pisze: Guys, I think the point was that it's not unreasonable to have synchronous API. The argument about slow/busy devices is valid, but I still think the developer should have the choice of either going with a simple query/receive

Re: [whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback

2007-12-11 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
Dnia 10-12-2007, Pn o godzinie 16:04 -0800, Dan Mosedale pisze: On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote: I'd hate for GMail to mysteriously stop working every couple of days just because of some background process that I had no knowledge of. As a developer, how would you

[whatwg] Removal of Ogg - eyes on you

2007-12-11 Thread Andrew Harris
You all have garnered quite the attention over removing Ogg Vorbis/Theora as a recommended audio/video codec in HTML5. Just a reminder: the rest of the Internet is watching, and is hoping with all its heart that you do the Right Thing here.

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Geoffrey Sneddon
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.

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] OGG in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Geoffrey Sneddon
On 11 Dec 2007, at 16:20, alex wrote: I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource spirit, but I may have been wrong. Standards are developed inline with the policies of the organisations

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Henry Mason
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback

2007-12-11 Thread Brady Eidson
On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: How does the globalStorage implementation deal with this problem? It has a synchronous storage API. True it is probably designed for smaller amounts of data, but there's nothing preventing an author from using it for large amounts (is there?).

Re: [whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback

2007-12-11 Thread Scott Hess
On Dec 11, 2007 11:22 AM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or does globalStorage not guarantee that data is written when the setter returns? A thing I've been thinking about for Gears would be the ability to spin up an in-memory/async session database, with the sense of session being the

Re: [whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback

2007-12-11 Thread Brady Eidson
On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote: I thought it would be useful if the spec had a simple synchronous API for cases where the developer expects operations to happen quickly and/or doesn't care if they timeout ocassionally (because, for example, the application will retry

Re: [whatwg] OGG in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread SA Alfonso Baqueiro
2007/12/11, alex [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard is the best idea i've heard in a long time,

[whatwg] User-Agent: Please !

2007-12-11 Thread Fabien Meghazi
Accept: application/ogg,audio/ogg,video/ogg,audio/vorbis,video/theora,audio/speex -- Fabien Meghazi Website: http://www.amigrave.com Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Geoffrey Sneddon
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback

2007-12-11 Thread Oliver Hunt
It's clear that most people here feel passionately that this is the wrong thing to do. Perhaps it's best that we table this until something like workerpools are in the spec. Worker pools do not resolve the problem, even if you were to force any synchronous IO to be performed on a worker

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread David Hyatt
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

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2007-12-11 Thread L. David Baron
On Tuesday 2007-12-11 02:39 +, Ian Hickson 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

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
I think you meant Vorbis, but other than a quick sed s/Theora/Vorbis/g, I see myself agreeing with you. El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Jeff McAdams escribió: Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Maik Merten wrote: If keeping the web free of IP licensing horrors and being interoperable with as

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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:

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Jeff McAdams
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

Re: [whatwg] Ogg Vorbis / Theora vote

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

2007-12-11 Thread Jeff McAdams
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

Re: [whatwg] Ogg Vorbis / Theora vote

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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 VIDEO you can offer it for free to

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
At 23:20 +0100 11/12/07, alex wrote: I have seen this argument pop up now and again, but I have failed to actually find the URL to this, could someone post it please? Hi. It was a record of a discussion at the HTML WG meeting, but since I wrote it, I guess I can re-post it here (and it

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

2007-12-11 Thread Oliver Hunt
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

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
At 17:30 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote: Apple and Nokia's stated reasons for objecting to Theora are crap... I can't speak for Nokia. But you are mis-characterizing Apple. We have expressed concern, and suggested that perhaps someone who can be seen to be independent, and is

[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

2007-12-11 Thread Shannon
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

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Jeff McAdams
Dave Singer wrote: At 17:30 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote: Apple and Nokia's stated reasons for objecting to Theora are crap... I can't speak for Nokia. But you are mis-characterizing Apple. We have expressed concern, and suggested that perhaps someone who can be seen to be

[whatwg] Reasons for moving Ogg to MUST status (was Re: HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities)

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Asynchronous database API feedback

2007-12-11 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote: It's clear that most people here feel passionately that this is the wrong thing to do. Perhaps it's best that we table this until something like workerpools are in the spec. Worker pools do not resolve the problem, even if you were to force

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2007-12-11 Thread Maciej Stachowiak
On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:27 PM, L. David Baron wrote: On Tuesday 2007-12-11 02:39 +, Ian Hickson 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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Karl Dubost
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.

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
I've tried to pick a representative sample of the e-mails sent since my last e-mail. The ones I didn't reply to have been saved to the outstanding video codec feedback folder, and I'll reply to them once we have a real solution to the problem of finding a common codec.

Re: [whatwg] persistent storage changes

2007-12-11 Thread Shannon
For what it's worth the changes to persistent storage have my vote. As a web author and user it strikes the right balance between functionality and privacy. Just one thing though, since this storage could also be used for 'offline applications' should some mention be made regarding access from

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
At 2:19 + 12/12/07, Ian Hickson 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. I entirely agree that it would be unacceptable for HTML5 to

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Robert Sayre
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

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2007-12-11 Thread Conrad Parker
On 12/12/2007, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think there are some objective criteria that can help determine the scope of risk: 1) Is the codec already in use by deep-pockets vendors? ... Vorbis: 1) maybe (I've heard game vendors cited, not sure which ones) Microsoft

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Robert Sayre
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

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

2007-12-11 Thread James Bennett
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

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2007-12-11 Thread Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves
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,

Re: [whatwg] whatwg Digest, Vol 45, Issue 16

2007-12-11 Thread bofh
On Dec 11, 2007 5:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Robert Sayre
On Dec 11, 2007 7:47 PM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sure there are many other questions... One question might concern the value in standardizing a shell API for proprietary codecs. If there are no freely implementable solutions, maybe the spec should drop it. Personally, I think

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2007-12-11 Thread Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Robert Sayre
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

Re: [whatwg] more discussion regarding codecs (Was: whatwg Digest, Vol 45, Issue 16)

2007-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, bofh wrote: 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

Re: [whatwg] Editorial: 3.10.18. The |sup| and |sub| elements

2007-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Christoph P�per wrote: The second to last example should probably better read: varE/var = varm/var � varcvarsup2/sup or maybe, as the speed of light is a constant, varE/var = varm/var � csup2/sup. If you are suggesting adding the multiplication sign, I disagree;

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Silvia Pfeiffer
On Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Possible action: The members of the WG are engineers, not IPR experts. There is general consensus that a solution is desirable, but also that engineers are not well placed to find it: a) they are not experts in the IPR and

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread L. David Baron
On Tuesday 2007-12-11 17:51 -0600, David Hyatt wrote: SHOULD is toothless. 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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

2007-12-11 Thread Ian Hickson
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