[whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*
giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl
Wed Dec 12 15:56:19 PST 2007
Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 13:12 -0600, David Hyatt pisze:
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> > David Hyatt wrote:
> >> Fear of submarine patents is only one reason Apple is not
> >> interested in Theora. There are several other reasons. H.264 is a
> >> technically superior solution to Theora. Ignoring IP issues, there
> >> would be no reason to pick Theora over H.264. Everyone wants an
> >> open freely implementable codec, but it doesn't follow that Theora
> >> should automatically be that codec. About the only argument I've
> >> heard in favor of Theora is that "it's open", but that is an
> >> argument based purely on IP and not on technical merits.
> > Openness is a prerequisite. Technical adequacy is a prerequisite.
> > The technically best solution is not a prerequisite. In case it
> > isn't obvious yet, an open, adequate format is preferred over a
> > better proprietary one.
> I don't think that is obvious at all, especially when the <video>
> tag's chief competition, Flash, is using the technically superior
> solution. Why would authors switch away from Flash if <video> doesn't
> offer any technically compelling reason to switch?
For example, because Flash is unavailable or is available in a way that
makes it inefficient with respect to open-source engines that can be
recompiled and optimised for a particular platform.
More information about the whatwg