[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

Dave Singer singer at apple.com
Thu Dec 13 21:53:03 PST 2007

At 16:12  +1100 14/12/07, Shannon wrote:
>Your suggestions are impractical and you are smart enough to know 
>that. You claim neutrality but YOU removed the Ogg recommendation

In recognition of the fact that work is ongoing, and that most, if 
not all, would prefer a mandate to a recommendation, the placeholder 
recommendation was temporarily replaced with a statement that we were 
working in this area.  That's all.  You're all behaving as if you had 
some toys and they've been taken away, and neither are true.  The 
spec is not done, you did not have a decision, and a decision has not 
yet been made.

Ian, as editor, was asked to do this.  It was a reasonable request to 
reflect work in progress.  He did not take unilateral action.

>and you haven't answered the IMPORTANT questions. I'll re-state:
>1.) Does not implementing a SHOULD recommendation make a browser 
>non-complaint (as far as validation goes)?

Formally, no.

>2.) What companies (if any) would abandon HTML5 based on a SHOULD 

This is unknown.

>4.) What prevents a third party plugin open-source from providing 
>Ogg support on Safari and Nokia browsers?

Nothing, but if the spec. required the support, the browser makers 
cannot claim conformance.

>5.) Why are we waiting for ALL parties to agree when we all know 
>they won't? Why can't the majority have their way in the absence of 
>100% agreement?

Because we have the time to try to find a solution everyone can get 
behind.  It's not as if we are holding final approval of HTML5 on 
this issue.  There is plenty of technical work to do (even on the 
video and audio tags) while we try to find the best solution. We 
don't need a vote.

>6.) How much compelling content is required before the draft is 
>reverted. Does Wikipeadia count as compelling?

When will I stop beating my wife?  Your question has a false 
assumption in it, that we are waiting for compelling content in order 
to revert the draft. We're not.  We're working on understanding.

As Ian has said, we are going in circles on this list, with much heat 
and very little if any new light.  Can we stop?  It is getting quite 
tedious to hear see the same strawmen bashed on again and again.
David Singer

More information about the whatwg mailing list