Dave Singer wrote:
Yes. I re-iterate; we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora codecs;
we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them, and we'd
rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue. It just gets
ugly (like the 3G exception).
But that's circular reasoning. "We don't have a commercial reason to
implement Ogg or Theora, and so we'd rather not have the HTML spec give
us a commercial reason."
If the HTML spec said that Theora support was a SHOULD, and the other
browser manufacturers were implementing it, then you would have a
commercial reason.
If you have nothing against Ogg or Theora, and your "interest in
multi-vendor multimedia standards is deep and long-lasting,
interoperable, and very open", and other parties have said that a
baseline codec for video needs to be open and (as far as can be
discerned) patent and royalty-free, then surely your position must one
one of the following:
- You don't actually want a baseline codec in the spec - i.e. you don't
actually have a commitment to interoperability
- You do want a baseline codec in the spec, but you are happy for it to
be someone other people can't implement - i.e. you don't actually have a
commitment to multi-vendor multimedia standards
- You do want a baseline codec in the spec, and want it to be one
everyone can implement - i.e. you are happy for Ogg Theora (or another
codec with a similar IP position, such as Dirac) to be it
That seems to logically enumerate the possibilities. Or have I missed
something?
Gerv
(Just in case there's any concern, I speak only for myself in this post,
as someone keen to see logical debate on this issue, and not for my
employer.)
