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 my area of expertise as I am (luckily) a resident of the
EU, but this whole submarine patent bussiness has got me thinking that
America better clean up ship quickly.
Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
On 11 Dec 2007, at 15:33, Wilson Michaels wrote:
In reference to:
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142&to=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 hostage to proprietary implementations of media
technologies. Proprietary technologies eventually are used
to limit inovation and prevent entry of other thechnologies
that threaten the proprietary company in some way. We don't
need another MP3 fiasco.
What difference is there between a SHOULD that few, if any, major
companies implement, and one that doesn't exist? The spec will never
recommend any format that cannot be freely (as in beer) be implemented
safely by developers (i.e., without risking being sued). Also, MP3 is
not a proprietary standard: you can go out and buy a copy of the spec
if you wish, and pay any patent charges due. You still, as with
anything invented within the last 20 years (including
Ogg/Vorbis/Theora), run the risk of a submarine patents.
--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>
