gerv at mozilla.org
Tue Apr 1 14:38:53 PDT 2008
Robert J Crisler wrote:
> From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that
> the ideals of the W3C as expressed in 18.104.22.168 <http://22.214.171.124> would
> result in a situation that would be superior to simply letting the
> international standards body for audio and video codecs deal with these
> technological areas.
Your plan would, at least, prevent the "standard" codec being supported
on Free operating systems. Meeting 126.96.36.199 as it stands would not
prevent this. Therefore, it would be a superior situation.
> Who wins and who loses? Web and new media developers win by having a
> streamlined workflow and one expectation for video and audio standards
> support in browsers. Users win by not having to worry about whether or
> not they have the right plug-in for Site A or Site B.
Well, the users who can get a licence win. Other users lose.
> The issue of a small licensing fee didn't stop MPEG 1 Part 3 from
> becoming the ubiquitous world standard for audio. It isn't going to stop
> MPEG-4 AAC from supplanting it, and it hasn't stopped MPEG-2 and AVC
> from being the standard for HD codecs. Insisting on purity in these
> matters while the world moves on strikes me as just a bit quixotic.
It's as much a question of practicality as purity. How do you track and
collect per-copy royalties for an OS which can be mirrored and
redistributed by anyone?
More information about the whatwg