[whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

[Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)]

Agreed.  Let's just return the text, put a MUST in place of the SHOULD, and 
continue the discussion.  If you find your solution within one year, great, 
s/Ogg/Yoursolution/g.  If not, bite the bullet and go ahead.

El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Jeff McAdams escribió:
> 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
> >> technologies.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.
>
> > 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
> non-descriptive text.
>
> 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
> and standards.



-- 

	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/

Among the lucky, you are the chosen one.
-------------- 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/20071211/e07c5765/attachment-0001.pgp>