[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
Maciej Stachowiak
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
> others):
FWIW that was my personal opinion based on reading the patent policy,
not an official position of Apple Inc.
Regards,
Maciej
More information about the whatwg
mailing list