[whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
mjs at apple.com
Fri Dec 14 15:46:32 PST 2007
On Dec 14, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
> Also sprach Maciej Stachowiak:
>> 1) Apple representatives have stated that we are ok with the SHOULD
>> clause remaining.
> Thanks for clarifying this. Does this mean there is only one member
> who can't live with the SHOULD? If this is the case, I think the
> chairs should declare rough consensus and put the wording back in.
I don't think Ian removed the SHOULD solely because of the specific
request to remove it, but rather because it does not represent a
consensus on a baseline codec and is unhelpful to finding a consensus.
In particular, it does not appear that presence or absence of the
SHOULD clause would have any effect on any vendor's decision to
implement Ogg, in the present environment.
I think this reasoning is valid and I don't see how putting the clause
back would help anything. What would help is participating in the
W3C's codec evaluation and research efforts (which I believe are
getting underway as a result of the video workshop).
More information about the whatwg