[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
stijn.p at hccnet.nl
Thu Dec 13 23:51:17 PST 2007
You seem to have missed Dave's point. The removal of the paragraph
mentioning OGG in the spec does not change anything. The spec is a
work-in-progress and the <video> tag is still under discussion. As such, the
spec has been changed to reflect that no decision regarding this has been
made yet. This does not change anything as that part of the spec was
Why would he discuss such an editorial change with the list first? It does
not hold any consequences for the final spec.
I do not understand why someone would be holding HTML5 ransom over this.
HTML5 is more than <video>. According to the road map the final HTML5
recommendation is due in late 2010. There is still plenty of time to discuss
the issue and come to a reasonable solution, and while you might find
<video> more important than <cite>, <cite> is also something to be
Van: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] Namens Shannon
Verzonden: vrijdag 14 december 2007 8:16
Aan: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
Onderwerp: Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
> Ian, as editor, was asked to do this. It was a reasonable request to
> reflect work in progress. He did not take unilateral action.
Ok, not unilateral. How about 'behind closed doors?'. Why no open
discussion BEFORE the change?
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.
The spec did not REQUIRE the support, it recommended it. You've now
confirmed that doesn't cause non-compliance.
> 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%
> 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.
Actually it appears that somebody was holding HTML5 to ransom on this
issue. Now you've caved in. Now the rest of us are holding it. Touche?
Anyway, this is a great idea except 100% agreement is practically
impossible. Are you claiming otherwise?
> We don't need a vote.
That just about says it all, doesn't it? Is this a public standard or
not? What is this list?
>> 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.
Then what ARE you waiting on (what PRACTICAL thing I mean)?
Understanding what? My understanding is perfect. The MPEG-LA is upset
with the Ogg proposal.
Also, when will you stop beating your wife? (since you brought it up).
Ian has claimed compelling content could end this impasse. I do not
believe it (any more than I believe you beat your wife).
> 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.
Of course people would like this to end. Some more than others. It would
help if those involved in creating the controversial changes would come
up with a practical solution but they can't. If would help even more if
you agreed to restore the text.
And who is blocking the light? Who created the strawmen? Was it Nokia
claiming that Ogg was 'proprietary' (conveniently ignoring the fact it
is public-domain). You claim 100% agreement is necessary to revoke the
change. If so why wasn't it necessary BEFORE the change?
The way I see it we are expected to wait for an impossible event. No new
protocol can possibly pass the expired patents test for at least 10
years. Are you planning to wait that long to ratify HTML5?
I am NOT the villain here. MY interest in this matter is altruistic (as
a web developer and user). I do not work for a company with existing
commitments to a particular format. If I keep the debate going then it's
because the answers given are unsatisfactory. I apologise to the rest of
the list but this is an much more serious issue than the format of the
<cite> tag to me.
More information about the whatwg