[whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities
jeffm at iglou.com
Tue Dec 11 16:26:57 PST 2007
Dave Singer wrote:
> At 19:04 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote:
>> Dave Singer wrote:
>>> At 13:45 -0500 11/12/07, Fernando wrote:
>>>> Please reconsider the decision to exclude the recommendation of the
>>> Theora/OGG Vorbis codec in HTML 5 guidelines.
>>> This entire discussion is founded on a major misapprehension: that
>>> there has been a decision, and that decision was to exclude. This is
>>> simply not true; there is no decision either to include or exclude.
>>> There is a recognition that work is needed.
>>> I and others have spent a great deal of time on this problem already,
>>> working with a number of people, including the W3C staff. Many of
>>> us --
>>> maybe all of us -- agree we need to find a solution that enables broad
>>> interoperability and is in accord with w3c and web practices. We have
>>> not yet reached consensus on having found it. That's all.
>> A decision was made to move away from using the ogg family of
> A decision was made to have the text reflect the facts that (a) no-one
> is happy with a 'should' and (b) that work is ongoing to find a solution
> (which might be Ogg, or something else). That's all.
The text was changed from a SHOULD implement Ogg et all to a completely
If things are up in the air, then why change it? Just leave the text
and have the discussion. If a better solution is arrived at, *then*
change the text of the spec. What need is there to change the current
draft of the spec away from ogg et all? That indicates a move away from
ogg et al by this body, and you're surprised why people get up in arms?
Sorry, again, doesn't pass the smell test.
>> While not a final decision, it is a threatening decision
>> to those of us that value freedom and openness and don't appreciate
>> being screwed by big companies.
>> Listen to what the people are saying.
> Oh, I am listening. It's by no means clear that the Ogg crowd is at
> all. I'm also spending efforts working on finding a solution. I don't
> count lamenting "I want my ogg" on this list as spending efforts at all.
Maybe you should listen to the meta-argument, then.
I'm sick and tired of getting screwed by big companies (including
Apple), and I will *not* quietly accept it.
If the text is changed to move away from a free and open solution to
something that is going to be encumbered, you better believe I'm going
to be up in arms about it, and I will not apologize for it. This change
is exactly that sort of change.
I would much rather Apple not implement HTML5 at all, so I can call
Apple out on it in the marketplace, than to let an encumbered technology
be ensconced in a standard like HTML5. And, in the past, these exact
sorts of maneuvering is exactly the sort of behavior that has led to big
companies getting end-user-screwing technologies ensconced into specs
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the whatwg