[whatwg] Video codec requirements changed
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
rudd-o at rudd-o.com
Mon Jan 7 14:16:17 PST 2008
I don't find anything objectionable with that suggestion. It gives us the
best of two worlds. Of course, should x264 be freed, there would be no
longer any reason not to put Ogg alongside x264 in the spec as MUST.
> I have a suggestion:
> "Nokia, Apple: you want H.264, you free H.264. Make it irrevocably
> perpetually royalty-free, it goes in. Do that with any other codec
> that's technically better than Ogg Theora, it goes in. You can't do
> that, we name Ogg Theora as a SHOULD. OK with you?"
> Anyone see anything unacceptable in that approach? Find someone from
> Apple and Nokia who can actually say "Yes" or "No" to this, perhaps
> the fellow from Nokia who wrote that darling little paper claiming Ogg
> was too proprietary. You're from Apple, you'd know who can say "yes"
> or "no" to this. (I realise you've already stated Apple is okay with a
> "SHOULD" for Ogg, perhaps you can explain Apple's earlier objections
> without appearing to contradict that.)
> - d.
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o at rudd-o.com>
Rudd-O.com - http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Rudd-O - Also sprach DragonFear
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the whatwg