[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 11 08:11:57 PST 2007
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.
More information about the whatwg