Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Stijn Peeters wrote: It does not hold any consequences for the final spec. Of course it does, or Nokia would not have taken issue with it. When this comes up in the future somebody will claim 'we've been over that' when the issue could have been resolved now. Putting this on hold changes nothing except to stifle debate. What's worse is that all the arguments made now will have to be repeated. I do not understand why someone would be holding HTML5 ransom over this. Because they have patents and existing investment in other formats. Are they denying that? No. Are they obsfucating that? Yes. HTML5 is more than video. According to the road map the final HTML5 recommendation is due in late 2010. This is an argument for AND against changing the text. Therefore not an argument at all. I would say that the fact h.264 fees become due in 2010 would be a case for discussing this now. There is still plenty of time to discuss the issue and come to a reasonable solution, and while you might find video more important than cite, cite is also something to be discussed. I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was the volume of traffic on the video element is proportional to its importance and therefore not a reason to shut down the debate. Shannon
Re: [whatwg] Acronyms Abbreviations whatwg Digest, Vol 33, Issue 90
Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 16:20 +0900, Karl Dubost pisze: Not to say that it creates localization troubles. For exactly the same meaning: TV in English = télé in French acronym abbr And what is supposed to do an automatic translator when translating something from English to Chinese for example. Drop the markup for acronym in some cases? Example English abbr title=telephoneTel./abbr: +86-10-8498-5588 Chinese 电话: +86-10-8498-5588 Clearly, an automatic translator is a very sophisticated piece of software. It has much more complicated tasks to do than just that. We can reasonably expect the translator to handle this case correctly as well. Best regards, Chris
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Shannon, I meant that the removal of the paragraph from the spec (which was done *after* Nokia sent its paper) does not hold any consequences. The final content of the video specification of course does. Apologies if this was unclear. The volume of traffic may be proportional, but most of its content is repeating the same arguments over and over again. I don't think this is of any use for the debate and a more pragmatic viewpoint might be of use for some of us. This is an argument for AND against changing the text. Therefore not an argument at all. I would say that the fact h.264 fees become due in 2010 would be a case for discussing this now. I didn't say video should not be discussed right now, on the contrary, like all issues it certainly should. My problem is mainly that a lot of contributors to the mailing list are making this debate too heated for its own good. There is time to come to a reasonable solution, and it will not be an easy one, as Ian said. Simply bashing Apple/Nokia/Ian does not help here. It is not simply a matter of reverting the spec to say Theora is the recommended format (as you seemed to be asking for a few replies ago), as it has been stated several times before that there are major browser vendors that will not implement this, and HTML5 naturally seeks to be a specification that will be implemented by as many as possible. Even though a SHOULD is not technically required for conformance, including a SHOULD that we know beforehand won't be implemented is of no use. Regards, Stijn ---Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Shannon Verzonden: vrijdag 14 december 2007 9:07 Aan: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Onderwerp: Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims Stijn Peeters wrote: It does not hold any consequences for the final spec. Of course it does, or Nokia would not have taken issue with it. When this comes up in the future somebody will claim 'we've been over that' when the issue could have been resolved now. Putting this on hold changes nothing except to stifle debate. What's worse is that all the arguments made now will have to be repeated. I do not understand why someone would be holding HTML5 ransom over this. Because they have patents and existing investment in other formats. Are they denying that? No. Are they obsfucating that? Yes. HTML5 is more than video. According to the road map the final HTML5 recommendation is due in late 2010. This is an argument for AND against changing the text. Therefore not an argument at all. I would say that the fact h.264 fees become due in 2010 would be a case for discussing this now. There is still plenty of time to discuss the issue and come to a reasonable solution, and while you might find video more important than cite, cite is also something to be discussed. I didn't say it wasn't. What I said was the volume of traffic on the video element is proportional to its importance and therefore not a reason to shut down the debate. Shannon
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Thank you. I want to clarify something in what you say below. In case it helps calm things down. At 9:26 +0100 14/12/07, Stijn Peeters wrote: Simply bashing Apple/Nokia/Ian does not help here. It is not simply a matter of reverting the spec to say Theora is the recommended format (as you seemed to be asking for a few replies ago), as it has been stated several times before that there are major browser vendors that will not implement this, and HTML5 naturally seeks to be a specification that will be implemented by as many as possible. Even though a SHOULD is not technically required for conformance, including a SHOULD that we know beforehand won't be implemented is of no use. Those browser vendors are not stating a permanent and dogmatic will not, AFAIK. This is quite important. They are saying that *given their current understanding* they do not think they will be to implement these codecs. Similarly, *given the current licenses for mpeg codecs* they understand that they cannot be mandated. *Given the quality of the old solutions with expired or no IPR (e.g. Motion JPEG)* they do not think that these codecs offer enough compression. And so on. For all these that are mutable, work is going on or could be done. On the IPR and risk question, it has been suggested that the W3C help with an independent, unbiased analysis, for example. We all knew before any of this recent flood of emails that the open-source codecs were candidates, and had support. The emails, despite their volume, have done little more than confirm this. -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
I've been misquoted on this list several times now so I want to make my position clear. I believe that the current draft, which was changed without open discussion, gives a green light for the status quo. The status quo is that Flash, Quicktime and WMV will remain the 'standards' for web video. I know this because I implement video on websites as a web developer. What concerns me is that the removed OGG recommendation (specified as SHOULD rather than MUST) was a step forward to the adoption (however reluctantly) by corporations and governments of a set of formats that require no royalties to encode, decode, reverse-engineer or distribute. None of the status quo formats can make that claim. Several people on this list have claimed that recommending OGG would have legal implications for vendors. It does not. Those who feel threatened have the option to not implement it - without affecting compliance. In nearly all cases the end-user would have been subject to the minor inconvenience of finding an alternate source of OGG support. What concerns me most is that the people making contrary claims know this yet argue anyway. Their motives and affilations, to me, are suspect. OGG Theora is not the most compressed video format, nor is it the least. It is however in the public domain and at least equivalent to MP3 and XVID, which are both popular streaming formats. While submarine patents may one day undermine this there is no current evidence that OGG contains patented technology and there is plenty of legal opinion that it does not. Either way it is not possible to remove this risk altogether by maintaining the status quo or recommending (or demanding) any other format. Supporting OGG now in no way prevents a better option (such as Matroska and/or Dirac) being added in the future. Nor does it prevent SHOULD being changed to MUST. The loudest objectors to OGG are also, in my opinion, the most encumbered by commercial support for an existing licensed format. This is not paranoia or fandom, just observation of this list. There is no evidence that recommending optional OGG support will affect companies adoption (or not) of the rest of the HTML5 standard. We only have Ian's word for that and I don't believe it anyway. HTML5 is likely to be adopted by all major browsers (in full or in part). MPEG2/3/4 are NOT unencumbered formats. There are too many patent holders for that to ever be the case. None will give up their rights while they remain defacto standards. Some claim that recommending no baseline format is neutral ground. The amount of outrage this triggered proves that is false. The claim that we have not reached a decision is true (my opponents use this claim to support their 'neutrality'). Yet it is clear to me that NOT setting a standard is as influential in this case as setting one. Indecision with no reasonable grounds for ending it leads to the status quo as I have said. Is it not the purpose (and within the powers of) of a standards body to steer the status quo? Is it not in the public interest that this happens? HTML4 advocated GIF, JPG and PNG even if the wording made it seem optional. The result was full support for 2 of these formats and partial support of the third. There is no reason to believe that putting a SHOULD recommendation in the text wouldn't result in most browsers supporting OGG (except IE). This in turn would give public, non-profit and non-aligned (with MPEG-LA) organizations justification to release materials in this format rather than Flash, WMV or MOV (all of which require commercial plugins and restrictive licenses). Some claim pro-OGG supporters started this debate. It was Nokia who made this a headline issue. Objectors claim they are working towards a resolution that defines a MUST video format and is accepted by 'all parties'. I don't believe that because they know this is impossible and it WILL affect HTML5 adoption. There is no format that can satisfy their unreasonable expectations. There never will be. We live in a world where companies claim patents on 'double-clicking' and 'moving pictures on a screen'. How then can any format ever meet their demands? I hope I have made my position clear. I hope my position represents the public interest. I am not here just to nag (I have been on this list for over two years and have only intervened once before). I am writing in the hope that proper discussion takes place and that future decisions of this magnitude are not made without public consultation - in the interests of entrenched cabals. I would like to say I believe all those opposing OGG have our best interests at heart - but that would be a lie. I am too old to believe companies and their spokespeople are altruistic (sorry Dave). Shannon
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Shannon, What concerns me is that the removed OGG recommendation (specified as SHOULD rather than MUST) was a step forward to the adoption (however reluctantly) by corporations and governments of a set of formats that require no royalties to encode, decode, reverse-engineer or distribute. None of the status quo formats can make that claim. Several people on this list have claimed that recommending OGG would have legal implications for vendors. It does not. Those who feel threatened have the option to not implement it - without affecting compliance. In nearly all cases the end-user would have been subject to the minor inconvenience of finding an alternate source of OGG support. What concerns me most is that the people making contrary claims know this yet argue anyway. Their motives and affilations, to me, are suspect. [...] Supporting OGG now in no way prevents a better option (such as Matroska and/or Dirac) being added in the future. Nor does it prevent SHOULD being changed to MUST. As I said, a SHOULD requirement in the specification which will (given the current status quo) not be followed by the major(ity of) browser vendors is useless and should be improved so it is a recommendation which at least can be implemented. Changing the SHOULD to MUST means that a lot of browser vendors would not be able to develop a conforming implementation. Governments do generally not build browsers or HTML parsers so an HTML specification would likely not influence them much, and I believe they are not who such a specification is aimed at. Some claim that recommending no baseline format is neutral ground. The amount of outrage this triggered proves that is false. The claim that we have not reached a decision is true (my opponents use this claim to support their 'neutrality'). Yet it is clear to me that NOT setting a standard is as influential in this case as setting one. Indecision with no reasonable grounds for ending it leads to the status quo as I have said. Is it not the purpose (and within the powers of) of a standards body to steer the status quo? Is it not in the public interest that this happens? Indeed it is, which is why this issue is being discussed on this list right now. HTML4 advocated GIF, JPG and PNG even if the wording made it seem optional. The result was full support for 2 of these formats and partial support of the third. There is no reason to believe that putting a SHOULD recommendation in the text wouldn't result in most browsers supporting OGG (except IE). This in turn would give public, non-profit and non-aligned (with MPEG-LA) organizations justification to release materials in this format rather than Flash, WMV or MOV (all of which require commercial plugins and restrictive licenses). As stated before, it did not advocate them, merely stated them as *examples* of image formats. Your claim that HTML4 played a substantial role in adoption of GIF and JPEG is interesting. Do you have any sources for that? HTML4 states Examples of widely recognized image formats include GIF, JPEG, and PNG.[1], implying those formats were already widely adopted before it was published. This is different from what HTML5 is going to do, which is recommending a specific format that implementations *should* support. Regards, Stijn [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40-971218/struct/objects.html#h-13.2 Some claim pro-OGG supporters started this debate. It was Nokia who made this a headline issue. Objectors claim they are working towards a resolution that defines a MUST video format and is accepted by 'all parties'. I don't believe that because they know this is impossible and it WILL affect HTML5 adoption. There is no format that can satisfy their unreasonable expectations. There never will be. We live in a world where companies claim patents on 'double-clicking' and 'moving pictures on a screen'. How then can any format ever meet their demands? I hope I have made my position clear. I hope my position represents the public interest. I am not here just to nag (I have been on this list for over two years and have only intervened once before). I am writing in the hope that proper discussion takes place and that future decisions of this magnitude are not made without public consultation - in the interests of entrenched cabals. I would like to say I believe all those opposing OGG have our best interests at heart - but that would be a lie. I am too old to believe companies and their spokespeople are altruistic (sorry Dave). Shannon
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Stijn Peeters wrote: As I said, a SHOULD requirement in the specification which will (given the current status quo) not be followed by the major(ity of) browser vendors is useless and should be improved so it is a recommendation which at least can be implemented. Changing the SHOULD to MUST means that a lot of browser vendors would not be able to develop a conforming implementation. Governments do generally not build browsers or HTML parsers so an HTML specification would likely not influence them much, and I believe they are not who such a specification is aimed at. This is a tired argument already debunked. The browsers that won't support OGG support plugins (and still remain HTML5 compliant). The recommendation will push other browsers (of which there are many) towards a common ground. As stated before, it did not advocate them, merely stated them as *examples* of image formats. Your claim that HTML4 played a substantial role in adoption of GIF and JPEG is interesting. Do you have any sources for that? Yes. (http://www.houseofmabel.com/programs/html3/docs/img.html). I quote: As progress increases the number of graphics types I've been asked to support in /HTML3/, many people are unsure as to exactly what formats are supported so perhaps a list is in order: * GIF (695, GIF) * PNG (B60, PNG) * JPEG (C85, JPEG) * Sprite (FF9, Sprite) * BMP (69C, BMP) * SWF (188, Flash) * WBMP (F8F, WBMP) --- So which of the above became defacto web standards under HTML4? And there were a LOT more image formats out there. Not proof, but certainly evidence the spec helped narrow down the list. Even though it was neither a SHOULD or MUST specification they were mentioned and it seems to me that counts for something. So did the fact the formats in question were believed to be public-domain. However, I acknowledge the speculative nature of this as I acknowledge the speculative nature of your other claims (like browser manufactures not supporting OGG when the spec becomes final). Shannon
Re: [whatwg] arrggghhh (or was it ogg)
--- Jim Jewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote: What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that their corporate-blessed containers/formats/codecs are free from threat for (ergo) the rest of us? In the end, it doesn't matter what the law or the patent says, it matters how the court *interprets* that law and patent. Case law for patents is considered particularly random. Therefore, no one can -- even in theory -- offer a guarantee. Something which should be a very string signal to someone in the courts and in Congress that the current interpretations of the current patent laws have allowed breach of the Constitutionally provided checks and balances. What they can offer is a risk assessment, like insurance companies use to set rates. Insurance companies, being at the center of the breach, should be considered traitors to the Constitution (or serious chumps). As an analogy, Apple, Nokia, et. al. won't promise that the bridge is safe to cross, but they will tell you that they (who are much heavier) have already crossed it. Hubris? Self-delusion? Evidence that they are planning an ambush? A single hobbyist who can't afford to hire a lawyer is relatively safe, because he or she is judgment-proof -- even if the patent trolls win, they won't get their money back. Unless the troll is Microsoft or other large OS vendor (probably operating by wire through some relatively unknown) looking to squelch the ability of the little guys to act independently. No, I am not being paranoid. (Wherefore neoSCO?) A large corporation may be worth shaking down, because they'll often settle even stupid cases just to avoid the costs and risks of legal fees. Therefore, if BigCorp has already used the technology widely enough to be expensive, *and* has not been sued, it at least suggests that no trolls have any relevant patents. A conclusion contrary to the evidence of court activity in progress (some of which has been mentioned in other threads), if you don't mind my saying so. joudanzuki Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
[whatwg] [html5] Unsubcribe me!
- Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Stijn Peeters wrote: As I said, a SHOULD requirement in the specification which will (given the current status quo) not be followed by the major(ity of) browser vendors is useless and should be improved so it is a recommendation which at least can be implemented. Changing the SHOULD to MUST means that a lot of browser vendors would not be able to develop a conforming implementation. Governments do generally not build browsers or HTML parsers so an HTML specification would likely not influence them much, and I believe they are not who such a specification is aimed at. A lot has been said about the meaning of 'should'. You are not the first to claim 'should' is only meaningful if vendors implement it. If this is the case why not replace ALL references to 'should' with 'must'? Rhetorical question. The reason for 'should' in a standard (or draft) is that it reflects what we (the public, the developers and the majority) want but believe some vendors won't or can't implement. It's an opt-out clause. According to OpenOffice it appears 329 times in the current draft. Hardly a useless word! All that is being discussed here is the desire to tell vendors they 'should' implement OGG. Apparently Nokia and Apple don't feel that way but are not happy to simply opt-out - they want EVERYBODY to opt-out. If we replaced all shoulds with musts this standard would never go anywhere and if we deleted all shoulds then we'd have even more divergence. What really matters is that where the pros and cons balance a neutral vendor (one that hasn't already committed exclusively to a proprietary format) might be persuaded to implement a 'should' recommendation. This is exactly what we had before this change, and for a good reason. I have yet to hear a neutral vendor oppose the OGG recommendation and I would be saddened if they they did. Also format wars are won by content, not encoders. Governments and non-profit organizations do produce content. Formats gain some advantage through standards support (even 'should' recommendations). You and Dave have both accused me of 'bashing'. I think a more appropriate (and less violent) word would be 'pointing'. I'm pointing out how self-serving Apple and Nokia are. PR-wise they are, in effect, 'bashing' themselves. Not my problem. Good luck to them and their entrenched monopolies right? It's their 'right' as a corporation to wreck standards for the benefit of their shareholders? They sound very reasonable, until you realise that one way or another the public will be paying for it. Shannon
Re: [whatwg] Xiph.Org Statement Regarding the HTML5 Draft and the Ogg Codec Set
[...] One minor point of clarification; Despite the MPEG proponents' claims that MPEG-licensed codecs protect against liability... I don't think anyone has said this. What we have said is that we have already assessed the risk/benefit/cost of these codecs and decided the benefit is worth the cost and the risk, as we currently perceive it. The equation is dependent on the technology. You wrote the equations, I believe it would be more forthright to say that the equations are dependent on your interpretation of the impact of the ownership of the tech on the marketplace. joudanzuki Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
[...] Objectors claim they are working towards a resolution that defines a MUST video format and is accepted by 'all parties'. I don't believe that because they know this is impossible and it WILL affect HTML5 adoption. How could a required video format be a step forward? Unless it is iron-clad guaranteed by some authority with greater legal competence than legislatures and courts to be free from any patent taint at all? There is no format that can satisfy their unreasonable expectations. There never will be. We live in a world where companies claim patents on 'double-clicking' and 'moving pictures on a screen'. How then can any format ever meet their demands? [...] Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Stijn Peeters wrote: Quoting Ian, [as a codec that everyone will implement] Theora is not an option, since we have clear statements from multiple vendors that they will not implement Theora.. So, in your wording, multiple vendors will choose not to develop one. Writing a spec while knowing beforehand that multiple vendors will not implement it conformingly still sounds like a bad idea to me :) That may be. But misstating that to say that they can't implement it heavily biases the discussion. They can, but they choose not to. The implications for the spec may be similar, but they certainly aren't the same, and it also paints everyone's actions in a very different light. -- Jeff McAdams They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Seriously, Charles, what are you gaming? --- Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Manual, Just because someone implemented it without permission does not guarantee that users or other implementors of the technology won't be driven to Chapter 11 by the patent owners, just as MP3 implementors were driven to the underground in the nineties and early 2000's. Nobody has ever been driven to Chapter 11 or driven underground for implementing a standards-based encoder or decoder. I don't believe that you don't understand the difference between implementing and distributing, so I guess now you're just trolling. Good luck. -- Charles Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Stijn Peeters wrote: Changing the SHOULD to MUST means that a lot of browser vendors would not be able to develop a conforming implementation. Again, this needs to be called out as being patently untrue. They might *choose* not to develop a conforming implemention, but they certainly are *able* to. -- Jeff McAdams They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
[...] That's all. You're all behaving as if you had some toys and they've been taken away, What do they say about the difference between the men and the boys? and neither are true. Tools, toys, what's the difference? [...] Ian, as editor, was asked to do this. By whom? It was a reasonable ... to some ... request to reflect work in progress. Progress? He did not take unilateral action. and you haven't answered the IMPORTANT questions. I'll re-state: 1.) Does not implementing a SHOULD recommendation make a browser non-complaint (as far as validation goes)? Formally, no. Then why do Nokia, Apple, and Leviathan take exception to the recommendation? Without, as has been hammered at, a suitable substitute? 2.) What companies (if any) would abandon HTML5 based on a SHOULD recommendation? This is unknown. True, and a point that keeps getting dodged. Why? 4.) What prevents a third party plugin open-source from providing Ogg support on Safari and Nokia browsers? Nothing, but if the spec. required the support, the browser makers cannot claim conformance. If the browser makers provide a plugin interface for dropping 3rd party support in, and the spec only says SHOULD, the job is done. Has Steve become so much afraid of the GPL? If so, why? What does the board of directors want that open source prevents, other than that trip down memory lane to the fantasy land of patronage? 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% agreement? Because we have the time to try to find a solution everyone can get behind. If there were such a solution, I suppose there might be time enough. We all know there isn't. As long as the dinosaurs in the discussion insist that a SHOULD is a MUST. It's not as if we are holding final approval of HTML5 on this issue. There is plenty of technical work to do (even on the video and audio tags) while we try to find the best solution. We don't need a vote. We didn't need this discussion, either. 6.) How much compelling content is required before the draft is reverted. Does Wikipeadia count as compelling? When will I stop beating my wife? Your question has a false assumption in it, that we are waiting for compelling content in order to revert the draft. We're not. We're working on understanding. What understanding? As Ian has said, we are going in circles on this list, with much heat and very little if any new light. Can we stop? Who started it? There are several brake levers on this train, and then there is the option to start pulling the track. I'm personally in favor of pulling the track, but that's just me. I have no fondness for overloaded angle brackets. Who started it? Their hand is closest to the brakes. The other option is not the brakes that this working group wants to invoke. It is getting quite tedious to hear see the same strawmen bashed on again and again. Calling them strawmen doesn't make them magically lose substance. joudanzuki Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[whatwg] $$ka-ching$$
Bring Back Ogg and Theora. How much did Microsoft bribe you? - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Quoting Ian, [as a codec that everyone will implement] Theora is not an option, since we have clear statements from multiple vendors that they will not implement Theora.. So, in your wording, multiple vendors will choose not to develop one. Writing a spec while knowing beforehand that multiple vendors will not implement it conformingly still sounds like a bad idea to me :) Regards, Stijn -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens Jeff McAdams Verzonden: vrijdag 14 december 2007 14:13 CC: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Onderwerp: Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims Stijn Peeters wrote: Changing the SHOULD to MUST means that a lot of browser vendors would not be able to develop a conforming implementation. Again, this needs to be called out as being patently untrue. They might *choose* not to develop a conforming implemention, but they certainly are *able* to. -- Jeff McAdams They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
[...] Indeed, the only difference is that with H.264 the large companies in question have _already_ taken on the risk, so there is no additional risk, ... for the big companies ... whereas with Theora there are no large distributors today and therefore patent trolls wouldn't even have considered coming out of the woodwork yet. (Pardon my mixed metaphors.) Just wait 'til the behemoth in Redmond has a loosely held independent subsidiary of something not visibly connected start making noises about how open source software might be encumbered. I believe many of the points being made in the most recent e-mails on this subject are points that have already been made many times. As far as I can tell, there are no satisfactory codecs today. As several keep trying to point out, there can be no satisfactory codecs, except satisfactory to certain parties, because, we have to assume for lack of other evidence, of backroom deals. [...] joudanzuki Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
On 14 Dec 2007, at 07:15, Shannon wrote: Ian, as editor, was asked to do this. It was a reasonable request to reflect work in progress. He did not take unilateral action. Ok, not unilateral. How about 'behind closed doors?'. Why no open discussion BEFORE the change? Please look back on the mailing list archives. There's been plenty of discussion about this before, and it's always ended up in the same loop: A group of people wanting nothing but Ogg/Theora/Vorbis, and another wanting one standard that all major implementers will support. -- Geoffrey Sneddon http://gsnedders.com/
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Krzysztof Żelechowski schrieb: Remember the - in DOCTYPE HTML? Feel free to be more specific.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Please look back on the mailing list archives. There's been plenty of discussion about this before, and it's always ended up in the same loop: A group of people wanting nothing but Ogg/Theora/Vorbis, and another wanting one standard that all major implementers will support. I did, and which of these approaches was finally accepted by the majority (and the editor)? a.) *Suggest* a format that is reasonably considered the only playable streaming format in the public domain? b.) *Insist* on a format that is reasonably considered the only playable streaming format in the public domain, but will cause all non-supporting browsers to fail compliance? c.) *Suggest or Insist* on a format that is obviously NOT in the public domain? d.) *Suggest or Insist* on a mysterious unnamed format that doesn't exist, and never will? e.) *Ignore* it and hope it goes away? The majority wanted a.) or b.). However b.) through d.) are impractical (politically or technically) and e.) didn't work in HTML4 so a.) was added to the draft as being an acceptable, if not perfect compromise. d.) and e.) fuel speculation of a mysterious solution that nobody can guarantee or even name! I'd even help develop it if I knew what is was. The group insisting on b.) through e.) are either stalling or hopeless optimists. You can't invent a codec tommorow and expect it to be safe from patents and adopted by all vendors (especially when some of those vendors are also video patent holders). You can't extract an agreement from existing codec owners to free their rights while they stand a chance of cashing in. THESE THINGS ARE IMPOSSIBLE! THEY ARE NOT OPTIONS! I would LOVE a baseline format specified as a MUST that is both 'real-time' and 'unencumbered' (option b.) but I KNOW that won't happen within the timeframe of this standard. You know that won't happen. We all know it won't happen. A 'should' recommendation for Ogg was chosen because it was the most popular, reasonable and realistic option. It was accepted (even temporarily), the issue was put to sleep. Then Nokia interfered, now we're here. What public discussion took place to revoke this prior consensus? Where is that archived? I've been reading this list for 2 years and the first I heard about the revocation of the original preference was AFTER it happened. The w3c discussed this? Fine, I'm still waiting for that link and I don't understand why a decision apparently made on this list was revoked on (apparently) another. (Actually I DO understand, I was simply posing THE question that needs to be asked - ie, whose in charge here?) The chosen wording was acceptable to most but it supported a format that wasn't obviously patented by incumbents so the incumbents reversed that decision off-list. Save your ire for those who deserve it, I want an open standard just like you. Can you say the same about Nokia, Microsoft or (gasp,shock,horror) Apple? Can you promise me that those who removed the recommendation are REALLY looking for a solution when they may gain from a lack of one? I don't expect a format that ALL browsers vendors will support but I do expect that this working group will *recommend* the next best thing. Something that open-source software and plugins will handle if the vendors refuse. Which right now is Ogg. Shannon
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Dnia 13-12-2007, Cz o godzinie 22:04 +0100, Maik Merten pisze: I think it all depends on definition and interpretation. If MPEG is an organization issuing real standards and Xiph is not... can e.g. WHATWG be considered to be issuing a real standard? Can individual companies issue standards? Is there a standard for creating standards? Remember the - in DOCTYPE HTML?
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 06:58 -0800, Joseph Daniel Zukiger pisze: Just wait 'til the behemoth in Redmond has a loosely held independent subsidiary of something not visibly connected start making noises about how open source software might be encumbered. You can distribute source software that is encumbered, and sometimes you are required to open your source by the customer, in particular when the government is the customer. It is all right as long as you pay the licence fee. I believe many of the points being made in the most recent e-mails on this subject are points that have already been made many times. As far as I can tell, there are no satisfactory codecs today. As several keep trying to point out, there can be no satisfactory codecs, except satisfactory to certain parties, because, we have to assume for lack of other evidence, of backroom deals. As several keep trying to point out, you cannot push a codec of your liking down anyone's throat; in this sense, yes, there will be no a priori satisfactory codecs until the Congress starts preferring prudence to profit, which is not to expect soon IMHO. But there may be codecs that are satisfactory a posteriori.
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Dnia 14-12-2007, Pt o godzinie 23:03 +1100, Shannon pisze: Again, a false presumption. This was discussed in the context of the HTML WG at the W3C. Those doors are not closed. Really? Does that mean I can claim a seat on the board? Where is this discussion about a public standard made public if not here? Please provide a link to these open discussions and I'll concede your point (and join - it is public, and free right?) That metaphor meant the doors are not closed for OGG to come back. I am not a member of the WWW Consortium but the information how to join is publicly available. I would not expect you can join free though; the membership gives you rights and imposes duties as usual. Look, I didn't request the change. I was OK with leaving a placeholder 'should' while we worked on a 'must'. Nokia preferred that the spec. indicated truthfully that work was continuing. This is hardly earth-shattering. I'm glad you didn't (and I never claimed you did) but the fact remains that Nokia did. Nokia requested, Nokia got, and you are defending them. When did you change your mind? I (and many others) make a reasonable request and get stonewalled. I'd like to think we are working towards the same goal and that we have different ways of doing it. Still, you have yet to reveal the magic codec that will make this go away. And yes, corporate self-interest is not earth-shattering, or relevant to a public specification when workarounds exist. You lost me. I see no 'holding to ransom', 'caving in', or anything. Then you haven't been reading Ian's previous posts. I am certain the subtext of his previous remarks was that HTML5 will stall if we didn't remove the OGG recommendation. I'm certain he mentioned 'major companies' being the reason for the change. Surely saying you won't adopt a standard because you disagree with an optional part is more disruptive than my questions? Besides, I really think you are too clever to misunderstand my claim. So what? HTML is a public standard, and at some point we will be asked to vote on it. We don't need a vote on this issue, now. We need work done. We don't need flames, either. I ask for the text to be reverted based on what appears to be public opinion and common sense. An educated opinion based on a lifetimes work. My questions are inflammatory only because the reason for asking them is. I believe the OGG recommendation IS the way forward and I believe I speak for others as well as myself. I have never made this personal or 'flaming' other than to question a poor decision by a minority interest. I am not using analogies about family members to make my points. My arguments, as always are logical and supportive of unencumbered standards. I don't think the current draft helps that and I don't think a better option than OGG is on the table (including saying that). I'm sorry this ended up on /. but again I had nothing to do with it - or the misinformation about OGG. If I wanted a flamewar I'd go to the Starcraft forums. This is serious and I am acting as calm as can be expected. Also I am a programmer. I have no objection in doing WORK to bring OGG up to a standard Nokia would accept - however let's be clear here - they wouldn't accept it anyway because they want H.264. The process does not need programmers but lawyers, unless you are ready to lock yourself in a conclave to build everything from scratch --- but you would have little chance of succeeding then. Then I am clearly wasting my time. Your understanding, approach and attitude all leave a great deal to be desired. Oh please. I understand Apple has a lot at stake in the video format wars. If you are wasting your time then I suppose that depends on why you are here. I have never lied about my motivation for requesting the draft to be reverted. MPEG-LA has said *absolutely nothing*. No they wouldn't. Fortunately I can read between the lines. Nokia is their frontman. Ask Nokia; they asked for the text to reflect reality. You prefer it reflect a false conclusion. *There is NO CONCLUSION YET*. You seem quite unable to grasp this simple fact. I am asking FOR a suggestion in the text to promote a public benefit. One that was there before Nokia's self-serving complaint. 'Reality' is currently 'defacto' standards. defacto standards that benefit a small group of companies. This is a standards organisation designed to prevent that. I'm asking this organization to take a stand. That is the way forward. Not quite. The principal goal of the organisation is to make online content easily available to everybody; benefits and losses can only be a side effect. Wonderful. I wish your understanding matched your altruism. It does. Again you insult my intelligence, while accusing me of 'flaming'. What is to misunderstand? The more poignant
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Again, a false presumption. This was discussed in the context of the HTML WG at the W3C. Those doors are not closed. Really? Does that mean I can claim a seat on the board? Where is this discussion about a public standard made public if not here? Please provide a link to these open discussions and I'll concede your point (and join - it is public, and free right?) Ok so I found the other list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Nokia state their reasons and clearly it was discussed (at Cambridge apparently) but why two lists for one standard? Shannon
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
On Dec 14, 2007, at 6:27 AM, Shannon wrote: Rhetorical question. The reason for 'should' in a standard (or draft) is that it reflects what we (the public, the developers and the majority) want but believe some vendors won't or can't implement. It's an opt-out clause. According to OpenOffice it appears 329 times in the current draft. Hardly a useless word! All that is being discussed here is the desire to tell vendors they 'should' implement OGG. Apparently Nokia and Apple don't feel that way but are not happy to simply opt-out - they want EVERYBODY to opt- out. Corrections to this: 1) Apple representatives have stated that we are ok with the SHOULD clause remaining. (We do think it is better to remove it for now but we can live with it either way). 2) At the same time we are driving work to find a codec that could meet the qualifications to be a MUST (which may or may not end up being Ogg Theora but will certainly be royalty-free). 3) Absence of a SHOULD clause doesn't force anyone to opt out of implementing Ogg Theora. Those vendors that wish to do so remain free to implement Theora or any other codec. I don't think Mozilla or Opera will back off of their plans to do so. You and Dave have both accused me of 'bashing'. I think a more appropriate (and less violent) word would be 'pointing'. I'm pointing out how self-serving Apple and Nokia are. Apple's goals are: 1) We don't want to significantly increase our risk of being sued for possibly billions of dollars. 2) We want to find a codec that everyone can implement (including open source implementations) which does not create the risk in #1. You could argue that #1 is self-serving, since it is a risk that largely does not affect smaller corporations or individuals. However, I think it is a reasonable concern. And we are doing something constructive about it by working towards #2. The W3C will be coordinating further work to review available codecs. Regards, Maciej
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
Also sprach Maciej Stachowiak: 1) Apple representatives have stated that we are ok with the SHOULD clause remaining. Thanks for clarifying this. Does this mean there is only one member who can't live with the SHOULD? If this is the case, I think the chairs should declare rough consensus and put the wording back in. That will restore faith in HTML5 for many. -hkon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.opera.com/howcome
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
--- Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to thank everyone for their continued polite participation :) Politeness is not always the way to move a conversation forward. [...] 3. Are you saying something that will just be denied, without leading us to resolve the issue? If yes, please omit that part of your e-mail. After a little sleep, a suggestion occurs to me. (I have not read all the subthreads, maybe it has been made already, if so, mea culpa.) I'm not really sure whether it makes sense to name a recommended codec as a baseline, rather than as an example. In an ideal world, it would make sense. Or, rather, if we knew that Apple (and others?) would at least be willing to open their phones to 3rd party codecs. (Yes, the third party codecs can be built, if the API for the container is truly open.) Nokia has stood up for a certain (informal? I don't remember.) consortium against ogg. They are insisting on balkanization, which is a modern word meaning patronage. (Pardon my strong language. Patronage was a central part of the system that generated the Boston Tea Party, as one might recall. We, that is, those of us who inherit from the Magna Carta, have been here before.) The standard, therefore could present ogg as an example of the sort of open container that would be standard compliant, and recommend it as a conditional best practice. It could require an open, documented API sufficient for 3rd parties to implement against. Plugins? My memory of the ascension of Flash was that I sure had to go find and load plugins for it on a lot of the platforms on which I worked in the mid-late '90s. 3rd party plugins can be a solution. (Sorry about the strong language, but, yes, I do believe the information technology industry is the current battleground where the question of freedom for the future is being fought, and I don't believe all the players are fully aware of the consequences of the roads they are choosing. That is, I am willing to believe Steve Balmer has bitten the snake, but others I would prefer to be less cynical about, including the other Steve.) joudanzuki Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
On Dec 14, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Håkon Wium Lie wrote: Also sprach Maciej Stachowiak: 1) Apple representatives have stated that we are ok with the SHOULD clause remaining. Thanks for clarifying this. Does this mean there is only one member who can't live with the SHOULD? If this is the case, I think the chairs should declare rough consensus and put the wording back in. I don't think Ian removed the SHOULD solely because of the specific request to remove it, but rather because it does not represent a consensus on a baseline codec and is unhelpful to finding a consensus. In particular, it does not appear that presence or absence of the SHOULD clause would have any effect on any vendor's decision to implement Ogg, in the present environment. I think this reasoning is valid and I don't see how putting the clause back would help anything. What would help is participating in the W3C's codec evaluation and research efforts (which I believe are getting underway as a result of the video workshop). Regards, Maciej
Re: [whatwg] Patent on VP3 / Apple
On Dec 14, 2007 2:22 AM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are not trying to be obstructive but rather the reverse. We want a solution which is effective and we are willing to work to that end, but some things are probably better done at arm's length or by a neutral party. Mr. Singer, are you perhaps in a position to state if Apple may embrace Theora as the baseline codec for video if Theora does come out clean after a patent search by an independent entity? -Ivo
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote: Or, rather, if we knew that Apple (and others?) would at least be willing to open their phones to 3rd party codecs. (Yes, the third party codecs can be built, if the API for the container is truly open.) This already exists -- there have been reports even in this thread of Ogg Theora plugins working with Apple's video implementation. This doesn't help with closed systems (e.g. iPhone), and it isn't an ideal situation -- we'd _like_ to be in a position where all players can implement the same thing without relying on third parties. Failing that, though, it is true that third party codecs can be the way to a solution. After a little sleep, a suggestion occurs to me. (I have not read all the subthreads, maybe it has been made already, if so, mea culpa.) Incidentally, I must encourage everyone to read all the messages before posting. If you don't think everyone else's messages are worth reading, why should they consider yours worth reading? :-) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Re: [whatwg] Patent on VP3 / Apple
At 0:32 + 15/12/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote: On Dec 14, 2007 2:22 AM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are not trying to be obstructive but rather the reverse. We want a solution which is effective and we are willing to work to that end, but some things are probably better done at arm's length or by a neutral party. Mr. Singer, are you perhaps in a position to state if Apple may embrace Theora as the baseline codec for video if Theora does come out clean after a patent search by an independent entity? No, I am alas not in a position to make promises on behalf of Apple. I can only say what I am doing, which is working on this issue quite hard. I do believe that at least some of the underlying causes (of the current inability to reach consensus) can be ameliorated with some hard work and research, that's all. -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
[whatwg] (non-)continued discussion of codecs
Friends I am dropping conversing on this subject on this list, unless something new happens. As I said before, I would prefer to work to resolve the underlying questions and concerns that make this an open issue in the first place (e.g. what is the risk in the open-source codecs?, is there a codec for which the patent-owners are willing to give an RF grant?, and so on). I, and I think my colleagues, firmly believe that we should work on a quality specification that can be broadly implemented and achieve excellent interoperability. Far too much of this discussion is based on misunderstandings, imputed motivations, or strawman positions. It simply is not an effective use of my time, or indeed of the time of anyone on this list, to continue to refute the same misunderstandings, dismantle the same strawmen, or correct the same imputations, time and time and time again. For the last time from me: there was no 'decision' to (only) recommend a codec set, or that the codec set was the Ogg set. There was (more recently) no 'decision' to exclude that set either. There is continued work to find a solution that reaches consensus. You can help find this solution. You can continue to repeat the same argments here. You can stop prolonging a basically non-progressing discussion and stop posting emails here. Please choose wisely. Thanks. -- David Singer Apple/QuickTime
[whatwg] The political and legal status of WHATWG
Ian, thank you for your answers re: video codecs. I agree with you now that everything that needs to said has been said regarding the change itself and I think most parties have made it clear how they feel and what they hope will resolve it. It's clear the opinions of all parties cannot be reconciled. The current text has not reconciled the views, nor did the previous, nor can a future one. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this will not end well. I am quite certain the issue at stake here cannot be solved at the technical or legal level at all. This is truly a political/financial matter. Which brings us to the hard questions at the crux of the matter: 1.) When a browser vendor acts clearly outside of the public interest in the making of a public standard should that vendors desires still be considered relevant to the specification? 2.) When an issue is divided between a vendor (or group of) and 'the public' (or part of), what relative weight can be assigned to each? 3.) When a vendor makes false or misleading statements to guide an outcome should there be a form of 'censure' that does not involve a public flame war? 4.) If the purpose of the group is to build interoperability should a vendor be 'censured' for holding interoperability to ransom without sufficient technical or legal grounds? 5.) What methods exists to define a disruptive member and remove them from further consideration? 6.) Should a standards body make a ruling even though some members claim they won't obey it? 7.) Should a standards body bow to entrenched interests to keep the peace? 8.) Does the WHATWG consider itself to be a formal standards body? 9.) Should HTML5 be put back under direct control of the w3c now that they have expressed interest in developing it? 10.) Is is appropriate for members to have discussions outside of this list, via IM, IRC or physical means not available or practical to the public? 11.) Does the group consider HTML5 to be a 'public standard' or a 'gentlemen's agreement' between vendors? 12.) Is it even legal for the majority of commercial browsers to form any agreement that could (directly or indirectly) result in higher costs for end-users? How do you prevent a 'working group' from becoming a cartel? These are not questions that anybody can easily answer. Some have probably been answered in this list but not, at least to my reading of it, in the charter, the wiki or the FAQ (none appear legally binding in any case). It is possible the lack of clear answers in an obvious place may threaten the impartiality and purpose of this group, damage your public image and inflame debate. I believe the reason for much of the 'heat' over the video codec is due to all parties (including non-members) coming up with their own answers in the absence of a formal position. That and a lot of mistrust regarding members corporate priorities. I've read the charter but it doesn't define many rules. The w3c has rules but my understanding is that WHATWG is not a formal part of w3c (even if some members are). Public acceptance of the standard may not, in practical terms, be as important as vendor acceptance (to vendors at least) but since the public is, in many ways, doing much of the vendors work for them it would beneficial to have a clearer statement of how these contributions are weighed. To cite a theoretical example: if some altruistic billionairre was to write the 'missing codec' that exceeded h.264 in compression, used 64k of ram, ran on a 386 using 50 lines of code and he or she paid off all the trolls and indemnified vendors - what actions, if any, would WHATWG members take to ensure it was accepted by members with vested interests? If that last theoretical question cannot be answered then what hope have we for a baseline video format? If answers to the above questions exist then please don't just answer them here. Anything short of a formal document on the WHATWG can't possibly represent the group as a whole and is just going to be raised again anyway. In other words the mailling list is not the best place to archive these answers (if any are forthcoming). Shannon
[whatwg] public-html list
Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Shannon wrote: Ok so I found the other list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Nokia state their reasons and clearly it was discussed (at Cambridge apparently) but why two lists for one standard? Historical reasons -- the W3C initially wasn't interested in doing HTML5, so we started in the WHATWG (back in 2004), but earlier this year the W3C decided to also work on HTML5 and adopted the WHATWG spec, and now the two groups work together on the same spec. I imagine this must generate a lot of cross-posting and confusion. Are there plans to merge the groups? Which group has authority in the event of a dispute or is that unknown? My spider-senses tell me we're going to end up with 2 HTML5's. Shannon
Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims
--- Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Joseph Daniel Zukiger wrote: Or, rather, if we knew that Apple (and others?) would at least be willing to open their phones I think I said phones there? to 3rd party codecs. (Yes, the third party codecs can be built, if the API for the container is truly open.) This already exists -- there have been reports even in this thread of Ogg Theora plugins working with Apple's video implementation. Which is part of the reason the independent developers feel antagonized, I'd guess. This doesn't help with closed systems (e.g. iPhone), No news would be bad news, in this case. (But the notes from Dave and, I think, Macie, clarifying Apple's position are appreciated.) and it isn't an ideal situation -- we'd _like_ to be in a position where all players can implement the same thing without relying on third parties. Flash survived a fairly long time while support in browsers was hit and miss. I distinctly recall having to download plugins for Shockwave, for instance (not to mention early versions of Flash, itself) and I _was_ working on MSWindows and Mac workstations at the time. Failing that, though, it is true that third party codecs can be the way to a solution. It looks to me like the only solution as long as Nokia and whoever else insist on not being invited to the dance. After a little sleep, a suggestion occurs to me. (I have not read all the subthreads, maybe it has been made already, if so, mea culpa.) Incidentally, I must encourage everyone to read all the messages before posting. If you don't think everyone else's messages are worth reading, why should they consider yours worth reading? :-) I don't know. After reading about 150 messages from the various branches of this debate from the last month or so, my eyes glazed over, I got a headache, I decided I wanted some sleep, I had to go to work the next day, you know, meetings with teachers and such. If it makes you feel any better, I just finished reading the remaining 51 messages from the list that I hadn't read since the twelfth. There is a limit to how much homework you can ask of people (which is something that someone needs to convince the US Congress and patent office about). Besides, it (still) seems to me that those who are supporting Nokia's, et. al.'s positions keep dancing around the problems, with idealistic hopes that big money will resolve the issue painlessly. And, yes, it does seem to me that I never saw anyone make the exact suggestion I made, and I think everyone is getting hung up in precisely that lack of precision. Has someone made the precise suggestion I made? Specifically: (1) Require (MUST) a container/codec not known to be encumbered for the video tag. (2) Require an open plugin API for the browser, so that 3rd-party implementations can be dropped in, and allow the requirement of (1) to be met by a third party plugin. (3) Mention Ogg as an example of container/codecs which are not presently known to be encumbered. I guess I can see a problem with that if it turns out that someone can make ogg appear to be encumbered. So it would probably need (4) Allow the requirement of (1) to be waived, or commuted to the next best thing available under RAND terms in the event that there are no implementations not known to be encumbered. (Not known to be encumbered is possible. Known not to be Encumbered is not, and it would be difficult to require some specific degree of certainty about encumbrances without forcing implementors to pay some sort of very large bond, or to fund the research at a level which would be way out of reach for your local independent web monkey. (Hopefully, those who are doing the research on Ogg now will share their results so that the work doesn't have to be duplicated too very often.) I want to say this again, but reading these threads, I'm pretty sure Nokia (or some faction among their share-holders) is just engaging in a chest-beating exercise to see how much they can get the standard to give in what they might think is their direction. (Bad business, but there never seems to be any shortage of share-holders that think the market should be forced or played to their momentary profit.) joudanzuki PS: (5) Take this issue to the US Congress to explain how strong IP laws actually do interfere with innovation by anyone but 800 ton^H^H^H pound gorillas. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: [whatwg] The political and legal status of WHATWG
It's clear the opinions of all parties cannot be reconciled. Of course, but they don't have to be because the requirements for the solution are clear, and I believe Ian and others have stated them several times now. For example, it's clear that AVC/H.264 cannot be part of the solution, and folks who share the opinion that it should be will be disappointed. In case you haven't had a chance to read Ian's note in a different thread, one of the requests to help improve the signal-to-noise ratio was Does this help move the issue forward? If no, please omit that part of your e-mail. -- Charles
Re: [whatwg] The political and legal status of WHATWG
It's clear the opinions of all parties cannot be reconciled. Of course, but they don't have to be because the requirements for the solution are clear, and I believe Ian and others have stated them several times now. Yes, requirements that CANNOT be met. Ever. Period. The current placeholder text proposes two main conditions that are expected to be met before vendors will 'move forward' and 'progress' will happen. It isn't a rule but there is certainly an implication that leaves a lot to be desired: a.) 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. b.) That is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies. The first statement is reasonable, however I personally know of only 1 video codec (Theora) , and 2 audio codecs (Vorbis and FLAC) that meet it. The second statement, combined with the first is a logical trap (a paradox). All vendors who do not *currently* support the chosen format will incur 'an additional submarine patent risk'. Can you see the trap? The ONLY way to meet the second requirement is to *currently* meet the first. If all the whatwg members already did that then this wouldn't be a issue. Those claiming to want a better codec cannot possibly implement it and meet the second requirement. If it doesn't exist then how can it NOT be an additional patent risk? You can't state an IMPOSSIBLE condition as a method for 'moving forward' and then expect people to take your claims seriously. Shannon
