[whatwg] html5 + ogg

Srdjan Pejic spejic at gmail.com
Sun Dec 30 11:02:42 PST 2007

> > The removal of ogg as a baseline for audio/video implementation
> > strikes me as ridiculous. Theres nothing stopping other formats from
> > being used after all
> If the specification included the Ogg baseline and few web browsers
> actually supported it, what use would the specification be? Simply
> specifying it won't actually make it widely implemented.
> There's also nothing stopping you from using Ogg in the things you
> develop right now, so how does the removal change what you choose to do?
> > As things stand with how easily large corporations can
> > obstruct/corrupt the process for their own goals, I might as well just
> > stick to xhtml1 and avoid rich media elements where possible in any
> > site I may end up developing until - and indeed if sense prevails.
> I guess by "rich media elements" you also mean JPEG, GIF, PNG, SVG,
> and Flash? None of those are included as baselines in the XHTML1
> specification either.
> -Henry

You know, I've been following this list for a while now, and I went
back and have read the previous threads pertaining to this issue. I am
getting really tired of arguments being deflected with phrases such
              "There's also nothing stopping you from using Ogg in the
things you
              develop right now, so how does the removal change what
you choose to do?"

Anyone not associated with Apple, Nokia, Microsoft and the like is
genuinely concerned that these big companies are twisting the spec to
suit them. I don't care for statements saying otherwise, since actions
speak louder than words. If there is a patent problem with Ogg Theora,
what are these companies doing to solve that? Apple reps on this list
have said that Apple would be willing to fund an independent patent
probe through WHATWG. Is this a firm commitment or just someone saying
things they think people will want to hear? Also, I have not seen a
response from Nokia on that issue. Same for Microsoft. If these
companies do not want to undertake a patent risk of any sort,
including an investigation prior to implementation, that's cool. It's
their financial responsibility. However, if there is a way to do so
without exposing these companies to such risk, why is that option not
being explored further? Or better yet, if it is being explored, can
we, the little people, be informed about it?

Until I see some firm commitments from the big boys on this issue or a
very viable solution being presented and explored through discussion
on this list, I will remain of opinion that the spec is being twisted
towards corporate means. Nothing else will dissuade me. I don't think
that I'm in minority.

-- Srdjan

More information about the whatwg mailing list