[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.


More information about the whatwg mailing list