[whatwg] (non-)continued discussion of codecs

Dave Singer 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 
excellent interoperability.

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 
time again.

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.

David Singer

More information about the whatwg mailing list