[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

[Stijn Peeters]

Shannon,

I meant that the removal of the paragraph from the spec (which was done
*after* Nokia sent its paper) does not hold any consequences. The final
content of the <video> specification of course does. Apologies if this was
unclear.

The volume of traffic may be proportional, but most of its content is
repeating the same arguments over and over again. I don't think this is of
any use for the debate and a more pragmatic viewpoint might be of use for
some of us. 

> This is an argument for AND against changing the text. Therefore not an 
> argument at all. I would say that the fact h.264 fees become due in 2010 
> would be a case for discussing this now.

I didn't say <video> should not be discussed right now, on the contrary,
like all issues it certainly should. My problem is mainly that a lot of
contributors to the mailing list are making this debate too heated for its
own good. There is time to come to a reasonable solution, and it will not be
an easy one, as Ian said. 

Simply bashing Apple/Nokia/Ian does not help here. It is not simply a matter
of reverting the spec to say Theora is the recommended format (as you seemed
to be asking for a few replies ago), as it has been stated several times
before that there are major browser vendors that will not implement this,
and HTML5 naturally seeks to be a specification that will be implemented by
as many as possible. Even though a SHOULD is not technically required for
conformance, including a SHOULD that we know beforehand won't be implemented
is of no use.

Regards,

Stijn

---Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] Namens Shannon
Verzonden: vrijdag 14 december 2007 9:07
Aan: whatwg at lists.whatwg.org
Onderwerp: Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

Stijn Peeters wrote:
> It does not hold any consequences for the final spec.
>   
Of course it does, or Nokia would not have taken issue with it. When 
this comes up in the future somebody will claim 'we've been over that' 
when the issue could have been resolved now. Putting this on hold 
changes nothing except to stifle debate. What's worse is that all the 
arguments made now will have to be repeated.
> I do not understand why someone would be holding HTML5 ransom over this.
>   
Because they have patents and existing investment in other formats. Are 
they denying that? No. Are they obsfucating that? Yes.
> HTML5 is more than <video>. According to the road map the final HTML5
> recommendation is due in late 2010.
This is an argument for AND against changing the text. Therefore not an 
argument at all. I would say that the fact h.264 fees become due in 2010 
would be a case for discussing this now.
>  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
> discussed.
>   
I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was the volume of traffic on the 
<video> element is proportional to its importance and therefore not a 
reason to shut down the debate.

Shannon