[whatwg] (non-)continued discussion of codecs
singer at apple.com
Fri Dec 14 17:25:19 PST 2007
I am dropping conversing on this subject on this list, unless
something new happens. As I said before, I would prefer to work to
resolve the underlying questions and concerns that make this an open
issue in the first place (e.g. "what is the risk in the open-source
codecs?", "is there a codec for which the patent-owners are willing
to give an RF grant?", and so on).
I, and I think my colleagues, firmly believe that we should work on a
quality specification that can be broadly implemented and achieve
Far too much of this discussion is based on misunderstandings,
imputed motivations, or strawman positions. It simply is not an
effective use of my time, or indeed of the time of anyone on this
list, to continue to refute the same misunderstandings, dismantle the
same strawmen, or correct the same imputations, time and time and
For the last time from me: there was no 'decision' to (only)
recommend a codec set, or that the codec set was the Ogg set. There
was (more recently) no 'decision' to exclude that set either. There
is continued work to find a solution that reaches consensus.
You can help find this solution.
You can continue to repeat the same argments here.
You can stop prolonging a basically non-progressing discussion and
stop posting emails here.
Please choose wisely.
More information about the whatwg