[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
mjs at apple.com
Tue Dec 11 17:20:18 PST 2007
On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar at googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>> 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.
> And these concerns are total rubbish (as pointed out by Apple and
FWIW that was my personal opinion based on reading the patent policy,
not an official position of Apple Inc.
More information about the whatwg