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] Xiph.Org Statement Regarding the HTML5 Draft and the Ogg Codec Set
On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:13 AM, Christopher Monty Montgomery wrote: As our intent is not to suprise anyone (especially not the working group), I'm attaching a copy of the press statement we've prepared in response to the ongoing Ogg-in-HTML5 brouhaha. An HTML version of the same release is now at http://www.xiph.org/press although not all of the mirrors may have picked it up yet. It's unfortunate that this press release conflates Ogg, Vorbis and Theora. They do not have equivalent deployment, testing and review status (or for that matter technical quality), and this is already a widespread point of confusion. Otherwise, well stated. Regards, Maciej
Re: [whatwg] Xiph.Org Statement Regarding the HTML5 Draft and the Ogg Codec Set
2007/12/13, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's unfortunate that this press release conflates Ogg, Vorbis and Theora. They do not have equivalent deployment, testing and review status (or for that matter technical quality), and this is already a widespread point of confusion. If the change under discussion was not to remove Ogg, but to remove Theora and leave Vorbis alone, such distinction would be expected. But the change under discussion removed the mention of Ogg altogether, and didn't leave the mention of Vorbis, which I found strange. -- Seo Sanghyeon
Re: [whatwg] Xiph.Org Statement Regarding the HTML5 Draft and the Ogg Codec Set
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Sanghyeon Seo wrote: 2007/12/13, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's unfortunate that this press release conflates Ogg, Vorbis and Theora. They do not have equivalent deployment, testing and review status (or for that matter technical quality), and this is already a widespread point of confusion. If the change under discussion was not to remove Ogg, but to remove Theora and leave Vorbis alone, such distinction would be expected. But the change under discussion removed the mention of Ogg altogether, and didn't leave the mention of Vorbis, which I found strange. I just removed the entire paragraph for video. I figured it didn't make any sense to require an audio codec without saying what the video codec was, since in practice one basically dictates the other. It's the video codec that's at issue, primarily. (For audio the baseline codec is PCM in WAVE, which is all you really need for sound effects. We'll eventually also require whatever audio codec is required for video to be made available to audio just so that a high-compression codec is also available, but that's not the primary use case. It would make no sense to require a different baseline audio codec for the non-sfx use case for audio than was required for video.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
