[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

[Krzysztof Żelechowski]

Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 23:03 +1100, Shannon pisze:
> > Again, a false presumption.  This was discussed in the context of the 
> > HTML WG at the W3C.  Those doors are not closed.
> 
> Really? Does that mean I can claim a seat on the board? Where is this discussion about a public standard made public if 
> not here? Please provide a link to these open discussions and I'll concede your point (and join - it is public, and free 
> right?)

That metaphor meant the doors are not closed for OGG to come back.  I am
not a member of the WWW Consortium but the information how to join is
publicly available.  I would not expect you can join free though; the
membership gives you rights and imposes duties as usual.

> 
> 
> > Look, I didn't request the change.  I was OK with leaving a 
> > placeholder 'should' while we worked on a 'must'.  Nokia preferred 
> > that the spec. indicated truthfully that work was continuing.  This 
> > is hardly earth-shattering.
> 
> I'm glad you didn't (and I never claimed you did) but the fact remains that Nokia did. Nokia requested, Nokia got, and 
> you are defending them. When did you change your mind?
> 
> I (and many others) make a reasonable request and get stonewalled. I'd like to think we are working towards the same 
> goal and that we have different ways of doing it. Still, you have yet to reveal the magic codec that will make this go 
> away. And yes, corporate self-interest is not earth-shattering, or relevant to a public specification when workarounds 
> exist.
> 
> 
> > You lost me.  I see no 'holding to ransom', 'caving in', or anything.
> 
> Then you haven't been reading Ian's previous posts. I am certain the subtext of his previous remarks was that HTML5 will 
> stall if we didn't remove the OGG recommendation. I'm certain he mentioned 'major companies' being the reason for the 
> change. Surely saying you won't adopt a standard because you disagree with an optional part is more disruptive than my 
> questions? Besides, I really think you are too clever to misunderstand my claim.

So what?

> 
> 
> > HTML is a public standard, and at some point we will be asked to vote 
> > on it.  We don't need a vote on this issue, now.  We need work done. 
> > We don't need flames, either.
> 
> I ask for the text to be reverted based on what appears to be public opinion and common sense. An educated opinion based 
> on a lifetimes work. My questions are inflammatory only because the reason for asking them is. I believe the OGG 
> recommendation IS the way forward and I believe I speak for others as well as myself. I have never made this personal or 
> 'flaming' other than to question a poor decision by a minority interest. I am not using analogies about family members 
> to make my points. My arguments, as always are logical and supportive of unencumbered standards. I don't think the 
> current draft helps that and I don't think a better option than OGG is on the table (including saying that). I'm sorry 
> this ended up on /. but again I had nothing to do with it - or the misinformation about OGG. If I wanted a flamewar I'd 
> go to the Starcraft forums. This is serious and I am acting as calm as can be expected.
> 
> Also I am a programmer. I have no objection in doing WORK to bring OGG up to a standard Nokia would accept - however 
> let's be clear here - they wouldn't accept it anyway because they want H.264.

The process does not need programmers but lawyers, unless you are ready
to lock yourself in a conclave to build everything from scratch --- but
you would have little chance of succeeding then.

> 
> 
> > Then I am clearly wasting my time.  Your understanding, approach and 
> > attitude all leave a great deal to be desired.
> 
> Oh please. I understand Apple has a lot at stake in the video format wars. If you are wasting your time then I suppose 
> that depends on why you are here. I have never lied about my motivation for requesting the draft to be reverted.
> 
> 
> > MPEG-LA has said *absolutely nothing*.
> 
> No they wouldn't. Fortunately I can read between the lines. Nokia is their frontman.
> 
> 
> > Ask Nokia;  they asked for the text to reflect reality.  You prefer 
> > it reflect a false conclusion.  *There is NO CONCLUSION YET*. You 
> > seem quite unable to grasp this simple fact.
> 
> I am asking FOR a suggestion in the text to promote a public benefit. One that was there before Nokia's self-serving 
> complaint.
> 
> 'Reality' is currently 'defacto' standards. defacto standards that benefit a small group of companies. This is a 
> standards organisation designed to prevent that. I'm asking this organization to take a stand. That is the way forward.

Not quite.  The principal goal of the organisation is to make online
content easily available to everybody; benefits and losses can only be a
side effect.

> 
> 
> > Wonderful.  I wish your understanding matched your altruism.
> 
> It does. Again you insult my intelligence, while accusing me of 'flaming'. What is to misunderstand? The more poignant 
> the questions, the more upset you get. That's not my fault. There is no 'misunderstanding'. This is clearly a fight over 
> free vs. closed formats and your 'wait and see' attitude only benefits the non-free standards of the incumbents. That's 
> not an outcome I can accept. You have a lot of power here, you should be attacking Nokia's claims, not mine.
> 
> If a better option appears in the future we will be both be happy, however your optimism is not 'reality' or helpful. My 
> objection to the current text is that it looks like an orchestrated stalling tactic. It is not a neutral, wise or 
> logical position. If you want the spec to reflect current reality then just rebadge the HTML4 spec. Going forwards means 
> making changes, not stating the obvious or maintaining the status quo based on Nokia's whims.

HTML 4 is the reality of today's customers.  HTML 5 is supposed to be
the reality of today's implementors --- people who work for tomorrow's
customers.

Chris