[whatwg] Reasons for moving Ogg to MUST status (was Re: HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities)
takkaria at gmail.com
Thu Dec 13 12:02:21 PST 2007
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
>> That's not unreasonable, but you have yet to give a solid technical
>> reason for reverting to the old text,
> Reasons to put the Ogg tech suite back on the spec:
> - it's Free (who here hates beer or freedom?)
This is a false dichotomy. (You characterise that if you don't want Ogg
in the spec right now, you're against freedom. This is not actually the
> - it's patent-unencumbered (this is a FACT)
Appending FACT to something which is inherently uncertain does not make
it a fact.
> - it's technically very good (Theora) or even superb (Vorbis and FLAC)
Unsure what relevance FLAC has here. Theora is not as good as many
other codecs. (If it was technically very good, in environments where
codec choice has nothing to do with IP constraints -- e.g. illegal movie
torrents -- then it would be used. It's not.)
> - it's widely available and readily installable
If this is the case, then it makes little difference if it's a SHOULD
requirement or not, since small authors can use it and have it easily
installed when a user comes across content that uses it.
> - it's being integrated in popular Web browsers RIGHT NOW
> - it enables little guys to produce content at minimal cost
Two fair points.
> This is not the year 2000. Mozilla and Opera are embedding Theora video.
> That's a user base large enough to force the rest of the players to get with
> the program.
I very much doubt it. IE at least would have to support it before a
majority of authors would use it seriously.
More information about the whatwg