[whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.
Gervase Markham
gerv at mozilla.org
Wed Mar 28 01:48:37 PDT 2007
Dave Singer wrote:
> Yes. I re-iterate; we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora codecs;
> we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them, and we'd
> rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue. It just gets
> ugly (like the 3G exception).
But that's circular reasoning. "We don't have a commercial reason to
implement Ogg or Theora, and so we'd rather not have the HTML spec give
us a commercial reason."
If the HTML spec said that Theora support was a SHOULD, and the other
browser manufacturers were implementing it, then you would have a
commercial reason.
If you have nothing against Ogg or Theora, and your "interest in
multi-vendor multimedia standards is deep and long-lasting,
interoperable, and very open", and other parties have said that a
baseline codec for video needs to be open and (as far as can be
discerned) patent and royalty-free, then surely your position must one
one of the following:
- You don't actually want a baseline codec in the spec - i.e. you don't
actually have a commitment to interoperability
- You do want a baseline codec in the spec, but you are happy for it to
be someone other people can't implement - i.e. you don't actually have a
commitment to multi-vendor multimedia standards
- You do want a baseline codec in the spec, and want it to be one
everyone can implement - i.e. you are happy for Ogg Theora (or another
codec with a similar IP position, such as Dirac) to be it
That seems to logically enumerate the possibilities. Or have I missed
something?
Gerv
(Just in case there's any concern, I speak only for myself in this post,
as someone keen to see logical debate on this issue, and not for my
employer.)
More information about the whatwg
mailing list