[whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5
mail at nabu.be
Wed Dec 12 00:11:10 PST 2007
> We have to take into accounts the needs of everyone. This includes large
> companies. If large companies will only accept codecs that they've already
> implemented, then that may have to be one of the criteria.
This conflicts with:
> Whatever solution we find will be one that is royalty free and open. That
> is not in any doubt.
You can't have it both ways.
> If the text moves to requiring a non-free codec, then you will have been
> screwed, and then you should raise almightly hell. However, no such
> decision has been made (and no such decision will ever be made, at least
> not while I'm involved).
Pfew, can we get a signed copy of that? :P
> * We could convince the MPEG-LA group to provide a royalty free license
> for one of their codecs, e.g. H.264 Baseline.
> * We could wait for Ogg to be used by a large fraction of the Web
> population, as that would provide the business reason for companies
> like Apple to support Ogg.
Without the standard? Highly doubtful.
> * We could use an codec old enough that all patents claimed to
> be essential to its implementation have expired.
Highly useless. Bandwidth & quality are still end user concerns.
The way i see it there are 3 possibilities so far:
- use ogg, possible (but negligable) risk of submarine patents
- use extremely old technology
- use another free codec which has a 100% guarantee that there are no patentholders lurking
this does not exist (afaik)
At the end of the day, I think little choice remains except ogg.
More information about the whatwg