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 
implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora should 
automatically be that codec.  About the only argument I've heard in 
favor of Theora is that it's open, but that is an argument based 
purely on IP and not on technical merits.


Openness is a prerequisite. Technical adequacy is a prerequisite. The 
technically best solution is not a prerequisite. In case it isn't 
obvious yet, an open, adequate format is preferred over a better 
proprietary one.



If you consider mobile devices that want to browse the Web, then 
depending on the constraints of the device, a hardware solution may be 
required to view video with any kind of reasonable performance.  A 
mandate of Theora is effectively dictating to those mobile vendors that 
they have to create custom hardware that can play back Theora video.  
Given that such devices may already need a hardware solution for 
existing video like H.264, it seems unreasonable for HTML5 to mandate 
what hardware a vendor has to develop just to browse Web video on a 
mobile device.


Thanks. I wasn't previously convinced we needed to mandate *any* 
particular format, but you just convinced me. If hardware is support is 
required for some devices, then it does indeed sound like a good idea to 
mandate some minimum level of conformance. It is far better that this 
minimum level of conformance be an open, freely implementable standard 
such as Ogg/Theora than a known patent encumbered format such as H.264.


Or put another way, imagine that GIF was an open format but PNG was 
IP-encumbered.  Would you really want to limit the Web to displaying 
only GIFs just because it was the only open image format available?  


Please stop attacking straw men. No one has suggested that. Under those 
circumstances, I absolutely would support requiring all browsers to 
display GIFs. This would not prohibit them from also displaying PNGs if 
they chose to license the relevant patents.


Technical arguments are relevant here, so take some time to consider 
them before accusing people of having shady ulterior motives.


Technical arguments are relevant, but do not control. They are neither 
the only nor the most important consideration. Furthermore, when 
apparently intelligent people persist in making simple logical and 
rhetorical errors, it is difficult not to infer that an ulterior motive 
may be present.


--
Elliotte Rusty Harold  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/


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 wealth to those
non-implementors.


Hixie replied:

As it stands, all the vendors who would implement Theora due to the SHOULD
in the spec already are implementing Theora.


David's note got me to wondering if inclusion of the SHOULD language by the 
W3C might ultimately reduce the liability to companies who actually 
implement Theora. That is, a judge who discovered that the W3C acted in good 
faith in attempting to find an unencumbered codec when it in turn 
recommended to Big Company A that it should use Theora might be quite 
receptive to A's defense against Scavenger S's claim against A. I don't know 
if patent law (like copyright law, at least in the US) makes allowances for 
innocent infringement, but if it did that would certainly lend some 
protection to both W3C and those who might follow its advice. This would be 
a question for the attorneys who I gather will ultimately be called in to 
help the W3C WG with its deliberations.


Another question of a similar nature: while I understand that Big Company A 
might indeed extend its vulnerability by actually conducting patent searches 
(various aspects of law seem to be likewise counter-intuitive, even 
paradoxical), would that remain true if Big Companies A, B and C were to 
underwrite a large-scale patent search by W3C? W3C might be able to shield 
the sponsoring companies from whatever incidental discoveries it made midst 
its deep search and hence limit their liability.


Re-iterating some things I said earlier, either there is wiggle room 
remaining to create a new video (or audio) formats in the gaps between 
existing patents or there isn't. It seems unlikely that all available space 
has been carved out particularly given that JPEG and GIF87 are already out 
there and given the requirement that a patent be nonobvious. Conceptualizing 
sequences of video frames as a time-based spatial frequencies analysis seems 
obvious. From there it would seem that almost infinitely many data 
compression schemes exist. For example, one ordinarily would tend to match 
the redundancies of frame i with those at allied locations in frame i+1. 
Suppose we consider an arbitrary frame to be a clipped rectangular subregion 
of a larger realm over which the camera actually moves. Then the compression 
technique might consist of first building hypotheses about the larger realm 
and then calculating interframe redundancy based on those hypotheses. With 
sound we have strings (of sinusoidal amplitudes) being concatenated together 
in each discrete moment in time; string similarites across moments maybe 
recast as multidimensional substring problems hence transforming what might 
look at first like a conventional Fourier analysis into something based more 
on discrete mathematics in very high dimensional space. I guess all I'm 
saying is that the number of methodologies that could be applied to the 
problems seems large and that one outcome that should not be foreclosed is 
the development of an obvious (hence non-patentable) codec from scratch with 
the collective talents of those so inclined to cooperate. If each step in 
the production of such a format is obvious, then all of its components 
would, by definition, be patent free. If no such wiggle room exists then the 
granters of those patents have arguably been overzealous and at least some 
of those patents must, it seems, be invalid.


Something that is suggested to me in the arena of international treaty work 
on IP harmonization that the W3C may be interested in adding its voice to 
would be large scale indemnification -- WIPO working in conjunction with W3C 
or some such thing. Certainly, reform of patent law is apparently mandated, 
though doing such work on a country-by-country basis seems like slow work. 
In the world of Real Property, the common law concept of eminent domain or 
compulsory purchase is extended as a power to governments to allow for 
creation of technologies (like roads or utilities) that would otherwise be 
encumbered by known molecular obstacles (like barns or fast food 
restaurants). When those obstacles become invisible and non-molecular (in 
the world of IP) and when they fail to have coordinates in Euclidean space, 
the regional jurisdiction of the government seems ill-suited to deal with 
those obstacles. Creating a treaty which allows the W3C to condemn a 
patent that I might hold might give a bit too much power to some folks (and 
I can imagine a zillion folks, and twice that many bots, voting against such 
a treaty) but in the long run. it might be necessary to think such thoughts 
in order to allow interoperability on our info-highways.


cheers,
David Dailey 





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 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 Hickson and myself have posted about in
   previous messages) or just not be mentioned at all.
 
  It isn't weak language. It places the blame squarely on the party who
  fails to meet the requirement.

 Agreed with you, Robert.  If SHOULD carries absolutely no weight... then why
 don't we just leave the paragraph there?  Stop eluding this question.

I disagree. If somebody is implementing the spec and are looking for a
recommendation of the W3C for which video codec to use, the SHOULD has
a large effect. If there is no codec mentioned, they will go looking
for what others have implemented and start a complicated decision
process with an uncontrollable outcome.

If a SHOULD clause, i.e. a recommendation, is all we can agree on,
then it is better than not mentioning a codec at all. I was happy with
the previous formulation of the paragraph and I am happy to go through
a technical assessment of the existing codecs wrt the criteria that
Ian has written into the spec right now. I am sure we will come to the
same conclusion that we did before and Ogg Theora/Vorbis will be
written back into the spec as a recommendation, but this time around
it will be stronger because we have done an assessment of its merits
and decided that they are the only ones coming even close to
fulfilling the needs.

I have no issues with this process.

Regards,
Silvia.


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 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 implementable codec, but it doesn't follow  
that Theora should automatically be that codec.  About the only  
argument I've heard in favor of Theora is that it's open, but  
that is an argument based purely on IP and not on technical merits.


Openness is a prerequisite. Technical adequacy is a prerequisite.  
The technically best solution is not a prerequisite. In case it  
isn't obvious yet, an open, adequate format is preferred over a  
better proprietary one.




I don't think that is obvious at all, especially when the video  
tag's chief competition, Flash, is using the technically superior  
solution.  Why would authors switch away from Flash if video  
doesn't offer any technically compelling reason to switch?




If you consider mobile devices that want to browse the Web, then  
depending on the constraints of the device, a hardware solution  
may be required to view video with any kind of reasonable  
performance.  A mandate of Theora is effectively dictating to  
those mobile vendors that they have to create custom hardware that  
can play back Theora video.  Given that such devices may already  
need a hardware solution for existing video like H.264, it seems  
unreasonable for HTML5 to mandate what hardware a vendor has to  
develop just to browse Web video on a mobile device.


Thanks. I wasn't previously convinced we needed to mandate *any*  
particular format, but you just convinced me. If hardware is  
support is required for some devices, then it does indeed sound  
like a good idea to mandate some minimum level of conformance. It  
is far better that this minimum level of conformance be an open,  
freely implementable standard such as Ogg/Theora than a known  
patent encumbered format such as H.264.




Good.  I also believe there should be a mandated baseline.  That's  
why I think SHOULD is too weak, and that we should be working  
towards a MUST.


Or put another way, imagine that GIF was an open format but PNG  
was IP-encumbered.  Would you really want to limit the Web to  
displaying only GIFs just because it was the only open image  
format available?


Please stop attacking straw men. No one has suggested that. Under  
those circumstances, I absolutely would support requiring all  
browsers to display GIFs. This would not prohibit them from also  
displaying PNGs if they chose to license the relevant patents.




Right, but, continuing the analogy, the issue you run into is if the  
Web at large considers PNG to be superior and just ends up using it  
anyway, then specifying SHOULD use GIF is rather irrelevant.  I do  
not think people will switch to video using Theora when a  
technically superior alternative exists that will also work in  
Internet Explorer (Flash).  We have to make sure that video is on  
par technically with what Flash can do.


Technical arguments are relevant here, so take some time to  
consider them before accusing people of having shady ulterior  
motives.


Technical arguments are relevant, but do not control. They are  
neither the only nor the most important consideration.


Similarly an inadequate open standard should not be proposed as the  
only way forward simply by virtue of its openness.  Wanting an open  
standard does not mean that Theora should just be automatically  
chosen to be that open standard.  It is also a logical error to  
assume that openness is not desired by a vendor merely because one  
potential open format is not approved by that vendor.


dave
([EMAIL PROTECTED])





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 reason to pick Theora over H.264.  Everyone wants an  
open freely implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora  
should automatically be that codec.  About the only argument I've  
heard in favor of Theora is that it's open, but that is an  
argument based purely on IP and not on technical merits.


Openness is a prerequisite. Technical adequacy is a prerequisite.  
The technically best solution is not a prerequisite. In case it  
isn't obvious yet, an open, adequate format is preferred over a  
better proprietary one.




I don't think that is obvious at all, especially when the video  
tag's chief competition, Flash, is using the technically superior  
solution.  Why would authors switch away from Flash if video doesn't  
offer any technically compelling reason to switch?




If you consider mobile devices that want to browse the Web, then  
depending on the constraints of the device, a hardware solution may  
be required to view video with any kind of reasonable performance.   
A mandate of Theora is effectively dictating to those mobile  
vendors that they have to create custom hardware that can play back  
Theora video.  Given that such devices may already need a hardware  
solution for existing video like H.264, it seems unreasonable for  
HTML5 to mandate what hardware a vendor has to develop just to  
browse Web video on a mobile device.


Thanks. I wasn't previously convinced we needed to mandate *any*  
particular format, but you just convinced me. If hardware is support  
is required for some devices, then it does indeed sound like a good  
idea to mandate some minimum level of conformance. It is far better  
that this minimum level of conformance be an open, freely  
implementable standard such as Ogg/Theora than a known patent  
encumbered format such as H.264.




Good.  I also believe there should be a mandated baseline.  That's why  
I think SHOULD is too weak, and that we should be working towards a  
MUST.


Or put another way, imagine that GIF was an open format but PNG was  
IP-encumbered.  Would you really want to limit the Web to  
displaying only GIFs just because it was the only open image format  
available?


Please stop attacking straw men. No one has suggested that. Under  
those circumstances, I absolutely would support requiring all  
browsers to display GIFs. This would not prohibit them from also  
displaying PNGs if they chose to license the relevant patents.




Right, but, continuing the analogy, the issue you run into is if the  
Web at large considers PNG to be superior and just ends up using it  
anyway, then specifying SHOULD use GIF is rather irrelevant.  I do  
not think people will switch to video using Theora when a  
technically superior alternative exists that will also work in  
Internet Explorer (Flash).  We have to make sure that video is on  
par technically with what Flash can do.


Technical arguments are relevant here, so take some time to  
consider them before accusing people of having shady ulterior  
motives.


Technical arguments are relevant, but do not control. They are  
neither the only nor the most important consideration.


Similarly an inadequate open standard should not be proposed as the  
only way forward simply by virtue of its openness.  Wanting an open  
standard does not mean that Theora should just be automatically chosen  
to be that open standard.  It is also a logical error to assume that  
openness is not desired by a vendor merely because one potential open  
format is not approved by that vendor.


dave
([EMAIL PROTECTED])



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 define 
 spreading falsehoods as immoral (see Ogg is proprietary comment).  The rest 
 of the discussion is basically a disagreement on how risky it would be to 
 implement Ogg on browsers.  Some of us don't feel it's risky, others feel 
 it's too risky to even consider (I understand -- billions of dollars may be 
 at stake).

And both threads are pointless and irrelevant.




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 (and everybody else's).

Chris



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.

Meaning Totem would be unable to play what?  Totem is unable to play
Macromedia Flash but Flash is not being discussed here.

Chris



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 (among other things) that an independent analysis be 
done.  The W3C staff are, I believe, actively working on the issue. 
I'm sure that they would be pleased to consider whatever background 
material you can offer them.


I fail to see how asking for an analysis of the problem is giving 
anyone the shaft, since no decision has yet been even offered let 
alone reached.


Did you read the piece that I edited from the discussions at the HTML meeting?

At 3:27  -0500 11/12/07, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:

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 the weasel-worded paragraph that would make
Minitrue bust their collective shirt buttons in pride:

p class=big-issueIt would be helpful for interoperability if all+ 
browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known+  codecs

that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is+  known to not
require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is+  compatible with the
open source development model, that is of+  sufficient quality as to be
usable, and that is not an additional+  submarine patent risk for large
companies. This is an ongoing issue+  and this section will be updated once
more information is+  available./p

is a preposterous and gross mischaracterization of fact (dare I say lie).  At
the very least, it's FUD.

It pains me to state what is and has always been public knowledge, and is
being intentionally ignored just to get the spec published:

- The Xiph developers were extremely zealous and almost fiduciarily diligent
in researching all possible patent threats to Vorbis technology, and for more
than a year they found none -- they even did the research *before* beginning
to code, explicitly to avoid submarine patents.  I know, because I was
subscribed to their mailing list and read status updates of this research,
practically at the start of the project.  I also know that big-name software
houses and media players manufacture products with Vorbis technology, and
none of them have been sued.  It's been what, seven years now?
- The Theora codec has had its patents practically relinquished by On3 with a
perpetual royalty-free license.
- Ogg and its audio/video codec technologies are the ONLY free software media
technologies with implementations widely available on all consumer computing
platforms -- from WM codecs to Linux DLLs, passing through the entire range
of hardware (floating-point and fixed-point) and OSes.
- Without guaranteed Ogg support (whose integration in user agents I think I
already established to be sort of a weekend-level junior programmer project
at NO COST, due to the ready availability of the technology in all
platforms), authors *will be* forced to use patent-encumbered technology. 
Remember MP3? Well, with HTML5 it's 1997 all over again.


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 will remember it
forever.

--

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/

Someone is speaking well of you.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Attachment converted: DaveG49:signature 96.asc (/) (001050A8)



--
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime


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 shirt buttons in pride:
 
 p class=big-issueIt would be helpful for interoperability if all+ 
 browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known+ 
 codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is+ 
 known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is+ 
 compatible with the open source development model, that is of+ 
 sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional+ 
 submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing issue+ and 
 this section will be updated once more information is+ available./p
 
 is a preposterous and gross mischaracterization of fact (dare I say 
 lie).  At the very least, it's FUD.

It is intended to be exactly truthful, actually. I apologise if you 
believe this to be fear mongering.


 It pains me to state what is and has always been public knowledge, and 
 is being intentionally ignored just to get the spec published:
 
 - The Xiph developers were extremely zealous and almost fiduciarily 
 diligent in researching all possible patent threats to Vorbis 
 technology, and for more than a year they found none -- they even did 
 the research *before* beginning to code, explicitly to avoid submarine 
 patents.

While this is very true, and admirable, and impressive, it is sadly not a 
guarantee. Certain companies (Nokia and Apple among them) have reported 
that they still fear that undisclosed patents may exist that cover the 
relevant codecs, as they might exist for other formats like MPEG4/H.264. 
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. Given the extremely large sums of money that are awarded for 
patent violations (cf. Microsoft's recent settlements), it is 
understandable that companies with the high profile of Apple and Nokia 
would not wish to take on such risks.


 I also know that big-name software houses and media players manufacture 
 products with Vorbis technology, and none of them have been sued.  It's 
 been what, seven years now?

MP3 is and old codec as well, yet the threat of submarine patents covering 
MP3 surfaced recently, much to Microsoft's chagrin. Unless the codecs are 
older than the patent lifetime, there is unfortunately no guarentee. 
Patent trolling companies are patient and will wait for bigger targets, as 
has been seen time and time again. (As an example of this, the Eolas 
patent case is still fresh on everyone's minds, I'm sure.)


 - The Theora codec has had its patents practically relinquished by On3 
 with a perpetual royalty-free license.

I do not believe anyone doubts that On3 is acting in good faith. It is not 
On3 that people are worried about.


 - Ogg and its audio/video codec technologies are the ONLY free software 
 media technologies with implementations widely available on all consumer 
 computing platforms -- from WM codecs to Linux DLLs, passing through the 
 entire range of hardware (floating-point and fixed-point) and OSes.

As much as I am personally a supported of the free software development 
model, I cannot let that control the spec's development. I agree, however, 
that any codec selected absolutely must be compatible with free software 
licenses, as is clear in the paragraph that you so rashly called FUD.


 - Without guaranteed Ogg support (whose integration in user agents I 
 think I already established to be sort of a weekend-level junior 
 programmer project at NO COST, due to the ready availability of the 
 technology in all platforms), authors *will be* forced to use 
 patent-encumbered technology.  Remember MP3? Well, with HTML5 it's 1997 
 all over again.

Ogg is not necessarily the only solution that avoids patent encumbrence. 
There are codecs that have been in existence for longer than the patent 
lifetime, for instance. Dave Singer posted a quite thorough analysis of 
this issue recently.


 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 will remember it forever.

Apple, Nokia, Microsoft and other large companies have stated that they 
will not support Theora purely based on the requirement in the spec. 
Having or not having this requirement in the spec thus makes no difference 
to independent authors. In the meantime, having this requirement is 
causing difficulties for those of us actually trying to find a true 
solution to the problem. I assure you that your needs are not being 

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 ever support any new codecs or new
features at any point in the future. This would be the only way to stop
adding new risks.

I totally understand that companies want to keep their risks low. If
this gets abused as cheap excuse as why they won't support anything but
their pet-formats things are getting pretty shallow, though.

If patents are such a threat to big companies they better should drive
serious efforts to get the patent lottery into a more sane state or they 
innovation potential is endangered.


As much as I am personally a supported of the free software development 
model, I cannot let that control the spec's development. I agree, however, 
that any codec selected absolutely must be compatible with free software 
licenses, as is clear in the paragraph that you so rashly called FUD.


The problem is that the requirements describe the emtpy set, as is
correctly described with However, there are no known codecs that
satisfy all the current players.

MPEG codecs are non-free, incompatible with free software and are
carrying additional submarine risks for all those who haven't yet
licensed them. The requirements ask for codecs that are not an
additional submarine patent risk for large companies. What about small
companies? Why should e.g. Opera or Mozilla want to license MPEG and be
subject of MPEG submarines instead of choosing codecs that were designed
to avoid patents since the initial planning stages? I guess it may
appear to be more desirable to take the submarine risk of free codecs
and in exchange get all the benefits of not getting into the IP
licensing mess.

To put it into a nutshell: To respect the needs of the big players for
sure is important - but same shall apply to the needs of the not-so-big
ones. I know you don't intend anything else, but the current wording may
be a bit unfortunate.

There are codecs that have been in existence for longer than the patent 
lifetime, for instance. Dave Singer posted a quite thorough analysis of 
this issue recently.


I doubt those old codecs can help implementing video and audio
functionality in a way satisfying current demands. I can't imagine
streaming e.g. audio with ADPCM or GSM ;-)


Maik



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 that risk.
 
 Which surely means that they won't ever support any new codecs or new 
 features at any point in the future. This would be the only way to stop 
 adding new risks.

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 other contemporary 
codecs like, say, H.264.

One way to get a company like Apple to want to take the risk of 
implementing Theora would be to cause there to be a large pool of existing 
Theora content out there. Obviously, this presents a bootstrapping problem 
(aka a chicken and egg problem).


 If patents are such a threat to big companies they better should drive 
 serious efforts to get the patent lottery into a more sane state or they 
 innovation potential is endangered.

I assure you that this is happening, but it's somewhat out of the scope of 
the work on HTML5. :-)


 The problem is that the requirements describe the emtpy set, as is 
 correctly described with However, there are no known codecs that 
 satisfy all the current players.

Indeed. Work is ongoing to address this. If we had a solution today, we 
wouldn't be having this discussion, the spec would just be updated to 
require that.

Sadly, work to get a solution here is likely to occur mostly behind closed 
doors, since it's principally a political problem and not a technical one. 
I am not actively involved in the work to find a solution here.


 To put it into a nutshell: To respect the needs of the big players for 
 sure is important - but same shall apply to the needs of the not-so-big 
 ones. I know you don't intend anything else, but the current wording may 
 be a bit unfortunate.

I think the current wording in the spec is actually biased towards the 
small players more than the big ones, but if you think it's the other way 
around then I probably have struck the right balance.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'


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 other contemporary 
codecs like, say, H.264.


If keeping the web free of IP licensing horrors and being interoperable 
with as many players as possible (commercial and non-commercial 
entities, open source or not, free software or not) isn't much of a 
reason things are looking cheerless for the web indeed.


I don't exactly see why the web should embrace non-free standards just 
because the big players made the mistake of licensing 
definitely-encumbered formats and are unwilling to take further risks. 
(I am aware this is a pretty hard wording and that things aren't quite 
that easy.)


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. Thus I fail to see why there was need for action.


One way to get a company like Apple to want to take the risk of 
implementing Theora would be to cause there to be a large pool of existing 
Theora content out there. Obviously, this presents a bootstrapping problem 
(aka a chicken and egg problem).


In a world where content is served on a per-user basis (streaming, DRM 
encrypted media files) I don't think this is much of an argument. HTML5 
is a future standard which will serve future content.


I think the current wording in the spec is actually biased towards the 
small players more than the big ones, but if you think it's the other way 
around then I probably have struck the right balance.


I was specifically thinking of the additional submarine patent risk for 
large companies part. Nobody wants to get struck by a submarine, so 
either this requirement should be extended to all sort of entities or 
dropped completely (as its hard by definition to make an informed 
statement about submarine patents).


Maik


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 will remember it forever.

This is a part of a bigger problem. 

Today an important part of our culture is stored digitally. To not
lose this culture for coming generations it's necessary to have
fileformats and codecs for text, images, audio, video, ... that 
could be used free independent of specific computersystems
and companies.

For example an UNESCO World Heritage Committee for fileformats
and codecs:

- Choose usable fileformats and codecs
- Set a deadline
- After this deadline it's not allowed to claim any kind
  of rights to this fileformats and codecs to avoid
  problems like with JPEG in the past.


tschuess
  [|8:)



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. Thus I fail to see why there was need for action.


There's a question within the W3C Process whether patents that are  
covered by a SHOULD via a reference are granted a RF license similarly  
to anything that MUST be implemented. Both Nokia and MS raised concerns  
about this relating to publishing the spec as a FPWD.


And these concerns are total rubbish (as pointed out by Apple and others):

[[[
8.1. Essential Claims

Essential Claims shall mean all claims in any patent or patent  
application in any jurisdiction in the world that would necessarily be  
infringed by implementation of the Recommendation. A claim is necessarily  
infringed hereunder only when it is not possible to avoid infringing it  
because there is no non-infringing alternative for implementing the  
normative portions of the Recommendation. Existence of a non-infringing  
alternative shall be judged based on the state of the art at the time the  
specification becomes a Recommendation.

]]] - http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#def-essential

In other words, the patent policy makes it clear that to be covered,  
something must be required in order to implement. A SHOULD-level  
requirement is clearly not required.


So any such concern about the wording that was in the spec is more FUD  
than fact.


cheers

Chaals

--
Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg lærer norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals   Try Opera 9.5: http://snapshot.opera.com


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.  You should at least have talked to Monty @ Xiph before  
jumping to rash

conclusions.


So undisclosed patents have been looked at? How?


--
Geoffrey Sneddon
http://gsnedders.com/



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 patent portfolio.  My patent count 
reaches the awesome number of *zero*.  Would you be willing to offer patent 
indemnity to unlicensed users of your Apple AAC audio format?  Because I fail 
to see why leaving users without a free choice for audio *helps* things.  I 
dunno, maybe I'm just dumb as a rock.


 Large companies (Nokia, Microsoft, and Apple) have expressed anxiety,
 and are asking (among other things) that an independent analysis be
 done.  The W3C staff are, I believe, actively working on the issue.
 I'm sure that they would be pleased to consider whatever background
 material you can offer them.

 I fail to see how asking for an analysis of the problem is giving
 anyone the shaft, since no decision has yet been even offered let
 alone reached.

The fact that no decision has been finalized is somewhat relieving, because it 
means we can still revert to the pro-free stance.


 Did you read the piece that I edited from the discussions at the HTML
 meeting?

No.  I just recently enlisted here.
-- 

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


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

tag? Can you imagine a huge mishmash of competing proprietary image
standards, many of which wouldn't even render in free software  
browsers like

Firefox? That would be a nightmare, but unfortunately, that's what's
currently happening with video. Much like the image standard in  
HTML means
that any browser can display anything in an image tag, so too must  
the video
standard in HTML guarantee that any browser can display anything in  
a video

tag. That's what the proposed specification is about.


That's interesting, because none of the HTML specifications up until  
now have actually mandated *ANY* format for baseline standards.  
Really. Go check out the HTML 4.01 specs: http://www.w3.org/TR/ 
html401/struct/objects.html


All that's said is Examples of widely recognized image formats  
include GIF, JPEG, and PNG.


Now HTML5 may very well change this, but the argument that the HTML  
specification mandated JPEG/GIF/PNG and this what made image  
rendering standards work on the web is fundamentally flawed; the  
specification mandated no such thing.



-Henry





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 sued for patent infringement, that doesn't mean that 
the suit has merits -- experts already looked at the evidence surrounding 
Vorbis and patentability, and unanimously said it's clear.


 That's not what Dave is meaning: If Apple gets sued for patent
 infringement, will you pay however many billion USD they have to? If
 you truly believe there are no patents covering Ogg/etc. then you can
 safely agree knowing that you'll never have to give away any of your
 money.


 --
 Geoffrey Sneddon
 http://gsnedders.com/



-- 

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/

Q:  How was Thomas J. Watson buried?
A:  9 edge down.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


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 streaming and everything.  Konqueror's shipping, isn't it?
There is at least *one* browser that already supports, through  
GStreamer, Ogg
in video tags.  I'd give you the link but it apparently fell off  
the end of
Planet GNOME so I can't find it...  Now hold on, it's not shipping,  
but that

doesn't mean it won't be shipping tomorrow.

What you actually wanted to say (but couldn't/didn't/were unwilling  
to) is:


No currently shipping browser by any of the major proprietary  
software

vendors support Ogg Vorbis or FLAC.


Nor any of the minor ones, nor most open source ones.

Also, I assume through Konqueror relying on GStreamer that Konqueror  
doesn't support it itself (or through a required dependancy, which is  
needed to actually conform to such a clause that existed). WebKit  
trunk also supports Ogg in video if you have the needed QT component  
(which is supporting it as much as Konqueror supports it). Opera 9.5  
beta has built in support for Ogg/etc. and supports nothing else.


There are still large questions about when Fx will support (which I  
assume from your later post is what you were referring to) video  
natively, though it may well be in Fx 3.0 in early '08.



It's just dollars.


Apple does not license Apple Lossless to anyone else AFAIK,


OK.  So they sell fewer iPods because iPods don't play Ogg Vorbis  
without

Rockbox.  Same outcome.


Oh, look, they are already losing custom through not supporting WMA.  
It doesn't look like they particularly care about that, does it?



and the
only standards that MPEG-LA collects money for that Apple receives  
any

share of whatsoever is MPEG-4 Systems and IEEE 1394 (Firewire).
Neither of these have anything to do with audio/video codecs. Saying
that Apple has a financial interest in wanting MPEG codecs mandated  
in

HTML 5 is totally untrue.


I didn't say Apple wanted MPEG codecs mandated in HTML 5, so don't  
put words
in my mouth or attempt to smoke-and-mirrors us with straw men.  This  
is
either a fumble on your part or an attempt to derail the discussion  
into

wreckland.


No, it is me trying to understand what you're meaning.

I said Apple doesn't want Ogg Vorbis because they don't control the  
tech, and
because they would very much rather have consumers prefer (in the  
sense of
being screwed with no choice) DRM-encumbered AAC (note it's not the  
codec,

but the controlling of the consumer that matters here).


AAC doesn't support DRM natively. It's a proprietary extension. iTunes  
has always ripped CDs by default into non-DRM-encumbered AAC (i.e., an  
open standard, and compatible with numerous players). Apple has never,  
anywhere where it has a choice, favoured DRM-encumbered standards.



--
Geoffrey Sneddon
http://gsnedders.com/



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 technical feasibility beyond a shadow of 
doubt) but because Ogg in HTML5 is the right thing to do.

 We're disappointed to see the spec go in this direction. I think it is a
 backward step.

Me too.

 There is no voting in WHAT-WG, and there is not much in W3C, but there is
 a reasonable process there that hopefully allows for this stuff to go back
 into the specification, unless we find a better alternative (i.e. still
 free). Let's keep hoping.

Well, instead of hoping, maybe we can draw more attention to this issue so 
public pressure helps us do the job.

-- 

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/

Don't you wish you had more energy... or less ambition?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


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  
or a
Chomsky to understand the real reason why they want the Ogg  
hamburger off

HTML5.


Maybe you should take some time to read the previous discussions of  
this issue before making such inflammatory accusations.


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  
implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora should  
automatically be that codec.  About the only argument I've heard in  
favor of Theora is that it's open, but that is an argument based  
purely on IP and not on technical merits.


If you consider mobile devices that want to browse the Web, then  
depending on the constraints of the device, a hardware solution may be  
required to view video with any kind of reasonable performance.  A  
mandate of Theora is effectively dictating to those mobile vendors  
that they have to create custom hardware that can play back Theora  
video.  Given that such devices may already need a hardware solution  
for existing video like H.264, it seems unreasonable for HTML5 to  
mandate what hardware a vendor has to develop just to browse Web video  
on a mobile device.


Or put another way, imagine that GIF was an open format but PNG was IP- 
encumbered.  Would you really want to limit the Web to displaying only  
GIFs just because it was the only open image format available?   
Technical arguments are relevant here, so take some time to consider  
them before accusing people of having shady ulterior motives.


dave
([EMAIL PROTECTED])



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 offensive to the people is using
encumbered technologies as a baseline as you are basically suggesting.

This is untenable.  Theora is the least unencumbered option, and likely
is totally unencumbered.

 Ignoring IP issues, there would be no
 reason to pick Theora over H.264.  Everyone wants an open freely
 implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora should
 automatically be that codec.  About the only argument I've heard in
 favor of Theora is that it's open, but that is an argument based
 purely on IP and not on technical merits.

Perhaps the only argument is IP (again, what a crappy, loaded term that
is), but don't underestimate the importance of that argument.

 If you consider mobile devices that want to browse the Web, then
 depending on the constraints of the device, a hardware solution may be
 required to view video with any kind of reasonable performance.  A
 mandate of Theora is effectively dictating to those mobile vendors that
 they have to create custom hardware that can play back Theora video.

Bullshit.  How long will it take for HTML5 to have a reasonable
penetration?  You don't think there will be hardware implementations by
then if its part of the spec?  That's a completely disingenious argument.

 Given that such devices may already need a hardware solution for
 existing video like H.264, it seems unreasonable for HTML5 to mandate
 what hardware a vendor has to develop just to browse Web video on a
 mobile device.

Cop out.  Its completely reasonable.  If you have to use hardware to
implement it, then that's the price you pay (and then the customers pay,
because you're going to pass the cost along), or perhaps you choose not
to be HTML5 compliant on that device.

To threaten the design of a supposedly open and free spec because of the
potential hardware needs to implement is what is unreasonable.  That
amounts to Apple, et al, holding the community hostage to your
commercial desires.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to help Apple screw me over.  I will not
quietly accept the w3c ensconcing a non-free codec into HTML5 and
subjecting me and everyone else to another decade or so of being screwed
over by avaricious big companies.

 Or put another way, imagine that GIF was an open format but PNG was
 IP-encumbered.  Would you really want to limit the Web to displaying
 only GIFs just because it was the only open image format available?

Once again you twist the argument to the point of breaking.  Noone is
saying anything about restricting the formats that are allowed.  We're
only talking about a baseline requirement.

In other words, yeah, I would be fine with requiring GIF as a baseline
in that sort of spec (which is de facto what we have anyway), but PNG et
al can still be implemented, just as you can still implement H.264 if
you like.
-- 
Jeff McAdams
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
   -- Benjamin Franklin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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 risk (their decision)  
they'd still be 100% within the spec. Thus I fail to see why there  
was need for action.


There's a question within the W3C Process whether patents that are  
covered by a SHOULD via a reference are granted a RF license  
similarly to anything that MUST be implemented. Both Nokia and MS  
raised concerns about this relating to publishing the spec as a FPWD.


And these concerns are total rubbish (as pointed out by Apple and  
others):


FWIW that was my personal opinion based on reading the patent policy,  
not an official position of Apple Inc.


Regards,
Maciej



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 unaware of the extensive analysis done of
 other codecs, including those that are licensed.


And all those other analyses have yielded us this stalemate?


I am not yet ready to say we are at a stalemate 
here;  I simply believe that it is desirable to 
get everyone (including Nokia and Microsoft as 
well as Apple) on board.  That's in all our 
interests, and I continue to work to that end.




That is a testament to the value of standards.  No one ever said you didn't
make standards.  I claimed you made *proprietary* standards.


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.  But you knew this; 
you're just trying to use emotional terms.



Playpens where
only the big boys get to play and the rest get to pay.  But in all fairness,
I should bring up that you also made Zeroconf possible, and that's awesome.


Thank you.
--
David Singer
Apple/QuickTime


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.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG

This attribute specifies the location of the image resource.
	Examples of widely recognized image formats include GIF, JPEG, and  
PNG.


Plus the compression algorithm in GIF was covered by patents. Unisys  
woke up. The Burn All GIFs campaign started. Many shareware and  
freeware disappeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIF#Unisys_and_LZW_patent_enforcement


--
Karl Dubost - W3C
http://www.w3.org/QA/
Be Strict To Be Cool







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 specification
speak for themselves.


 Of course, that's what they are *saying*. It doesn't take a Feynman or a
 Chomsky to understand the real reason why they want the Ogg hamburger off
 HTML5.

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 a climate.

-- 

Robert Sayre

I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.


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 inappropriate at this juncture for
 reasons that Dave Singer. Ian Hickson and myself have posted about in
 previous messages) or just not be mentioned at all.

It isn't weak language. It places the blame squarely on the party who
fails to meet the requirement.

-- 

Robert Sayre

I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.


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 a climate.

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 define 
spreading falsehoods as immoral (see Ogg is proprietary comment).  The rest 
of the discussion is basically a disagreement on how risky it would be to 
implement Ogg on browsers.  Some of us don't feel it's risky, others feel 
it's too risky to even consider (I understand -- billions of dollars may be 
at stake).

The spec is also very good, overall.
-- 

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/

Things past redress and now with me past care.
-- William Shakespeare, Richard II


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


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 spec.  It
  should either be a MUST (which is inappropriate at this juncture for
  reasons that Dave Singer. Ian Hickson and myself have posted about in
  previous messages) or just not be mentioned at all.

 It isn't weak language. It places the blame squarely on the party who
 fails to meet the requirement.

Agreed with you, Robert.  If SHOULD carries absolutely no weight... then why 
don't we just leave the paragraph there?  Stop eluding this question.

Oh, prepare for a barrage of uneducated comments.  My article just hit Digg 
front page and is climbing rapidly in diggs.  I edited the text on the 
article a bit to discourage uneducated participation on the list.
-- 

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/

Q:  How many Zen masters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A:  None.  The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master stays out
of the way.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


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 non-proprietary. For
example, it could be the offering of a cartel.

In this case, you have to pay to use it, so it's pretty clear that it
is proprietary. At least for those of us that speak English as a first
language.

http://www.answers.com/proprietaryr=67

-- 

Robert Sayre

I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.


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 Hickson and myself have posted about in previous messages) 
 or just not be mentioned at all.

I disagree that SHOULD is toothless.  A SHOULD is something that you
should do unless you have a good reason not to:

# 3. SHOULD   This word, or the adjective RECOMMENDED, mean that there
#may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
#particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
#carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
  -- http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

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 wealth to
those non-implementors.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation   http://www.mozilla.com/


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 size or wealth to those 
 non-implementors.

As it stands, all the vendors who would implement Theora due to the SHOULD 
in the spec already are implementing Theora.

-- 
Ian Hickson   U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/   U+263A/,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'