[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
rudd-o at rudd-o.com
Tue Dec 11 21:21:58 PST 2007
> That sounds too accusatory to me. I'd be surprised to find malice,
> immorality, or profiteering at the root. I do think the recent changes
> to the document are supported by weak pseudo-legal doubletalk from
> engineers afraid to get in trouble.
> Don't expect good quality specifications from such a climate.
Look, guys. I don't think I've explained myself well, partly because I've
come on too strong. There is no evidence of malice. There's also no
evidence of profiteering. There *is* evidence of immorality, if you define
spreading falsehoods as immoral (see "Ogg is proprietary" comment). The rest
of the discussion is basically a disagreement on how risky it would be to
implement Ogg on browsers. Some of us don't feel it's risky, others feel
it's too risky to even consider (I understand -- billions of dollars may be
The spec is also very good, overall.
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/
Things past redress and now with me past care.
-- William Shakespeare, "Richard II"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the whatwg