gerv at mozilla.org
Mon Mar 31 10:10:26 PDT 2008
Robert J Crisler wrote:
> The text under 220.127.116.11 could have been written ten years ago:
> "It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support
> the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the
> current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit
> or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source
> development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and
> that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies.
> This is an ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more
> information is available."
> You may have a digital cable or satellite service (that's
> MPEG-2 or MPEG-4). You may have a DVD player (MPEG-2), or a Blu-Ray
> player (MPEG-4). You may have an iPod (MPEG-4). And you may have heard
> of MP3.
So you believe that these codecs meet the requirements in 18.104.22.168? Or
are you saying that the requirements need to change? If you are saying
they need to change, who wins and who loses from the change? And how do
you justify that?
More information about the whatwg