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

2007-12-12 Thread Elliotte Rusty Harold
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

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous* , SHOULD, and other matters

2007-12-12 Thread ddailey
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

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

2007-12-12 Thread Silvia Pfeiffer
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

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

2007-12-12 Thread David Hyatt
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

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

2007-12-12 Thread David Hyatt
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

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

2007-12-12 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
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

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

2007-12-12 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
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

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

2007-12-12 Thread Krzysztof Żelechowski
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.

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] 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] 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] 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

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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