<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Ian Hickson wrote:
<pre wrap="">As far as I can tell, there are no satisfactory codecs today. If we are to
make progress, we need to change the landscape. There are various ways to
do this, for example:
* Make significant quantities of compelling content available using one
of the royalty-free codecs, so that the large companies have a reason
to take on the risk of supporting it.
* Put the chicken before the egg.<br>
<pre wrap=""> * Convince one of the largest companies to distribute a royalty-free
codec, taking on the unknown liability, and make this widely known, to
attract patent trolls.
* Wait till cows fly.<br>
<pre wrap=""> * Negotiate with the patent holders of a non-royalty-free codec to find a
way that their codec can be used royalty-free.
* Wait till the sky turns green.<br>
<pre wrap=""> * Change the patent system in the various countries that are affected by
the patent trolling issue. (It's not just the US.)
* Wait till hell freezes over.<br>
Your suggestions are impractical and you are smart enough to know that.
You claim neutrality but YOU removed the Ogg recommendation and you
haven't answered the IMPORTANT questions. I'll re-state:<br>
1.) Does not implementing a SHOULD recommendation make a browser
non-complaint (as far as validation goes)?<br>
2.) What companies (if any) would abandon HTML5 based on a SHOULD
3.) What is Google/Youtubes' official position (as the largest internet
video provider)? I assume they are reading this list and I'm guessing
you still work for them.<br>
4.) What prevents a third party plugin open-source from providing Ogg
support on Safari and Nokia browsers?<br>
5.) Why are we waiting for ALL parties to agree when we all know they
won't? Why can't the majority have their way in the absence of 100%
6.) How much compelling content is required before the draft is
reverted. Does Wikipeadia count as compelling?<br>
Answering these questions is the way forward, not back-and-forthing
over legal issues.<br>
Ian Hickson wrote:
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Shannon wrote:
<pre wrap="">Arguing the definition of "proprietary" and "standards" is irrelevant.
Neither has any bearing on the problem which is that in 2010 the MPEG-LA
(of which Nokia is a member) will impose fees on all use of h.264 on the
Internet equivalent to those of 'free television'. As near as I can tell
that will mean all websites serving h.264 content will be liable for
fees of between $2,500 - $10,000 USD per annum. This makes it
inappropriate for any public standard and makes other technical and
legal comparisons between Ogg and h.264 irrelevant. x264 is a nice
program but it is doubtful it is exempt from these fees nor is the
content it produces or the websites that host them.
Again, as far as I can tell nobody is actually suggesting requiring H.264.
I don't think it is productive to really discuss whether H.264 would be a
possible codec at this time, since it clearly isn't.
Nokia certainly seem to be suggesting this, and they helped start this
<pre wrap=""> </pre>
<pre wrap="">The ONLY issue here is about the inclusion of Ogg as a SUGGESTION (not
requirement) and the ONLY argument against the format is that it *might*
be subject to submarine patents - however since this applies to EVERY
video codec and even HTML5 itself it is also irrelevant.
No, the issue is about finding a codec that everyone will implement. To
that end, Theora is not an option, since we have clear statements from
multiple vendors that they will not implement Theora.
Again, as I noted in this e-mail:
I would please like to ask everyone participating in this discussion to
focus on the future and on how we can move forward.
I am focusing on the future. I do not want Flash to become the defacto
video standard. Inaction is still an action in this case.<br>