[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

[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) <rudd-o at rudd-o.com>
	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"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20071212/49e374b3/attachment.pgp>