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
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
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
Charles,
This needs some correction, too, I think. :-)
Ogg Theora is not the same as VC3. It was built out of VC3 and the
specification is available freely and openly and there has been a 1.0
release of the specification, so it is also managed well from that
point of view. That Xiph is not an
Charles schrieb:
AVC is a standard under both the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG)
and ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG).
Right, but of course neither VCEG nor ISO/IEC have a monopoly on setting
standards.
Also, AVC is a de-facto standard. Every iPod supports it. Every PSP
Silvia,
So, while you can call VC3 proprietary, you cannot do the same
with Theora IMHO.
I don't personally call it proprietary, but I was trying to sympathize why
some folks (maybe especially those who spend mind-numbing hours working with
media standards bodies) might.
I appreciate the
Mark,
AVC is a standard under both the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group
(VCEG) and ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG).
Right, but of course neither VCEG nor ISO/IEC have a monopoly on
setting standards.
Certainly, sir, but that wasn't my point.
It's a standard because it has a
2007/12/14, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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.
I agree that most people here are not suggesting
2007-12-14 02:40 Ian Hickson:
I do not believe anyone has suggested we use H.264 as the common
codec.
I would support it as *a* common codec, if it only /must/ be
supported (transparently) when an underlying (plugin) framework,
operating system or hardware provides it, and otherwise only
At 16:12 +1100 14/12/07, Shannon wrote:
Your suggestions are impractical and you are smart enough to know
that. You claim neutrality but YOU removed the Ogg recommendation
In recognition of the fact that work is ongoing, and that most, if
not all, would prefer a mandate to a recommendation,
About acronym and abbr.
Le 14 déc. 2007 à 00:02, Charles McCathieNevile a écrit :
We could attempt to define clearly the meanings in different
langauges,
Recurring discussions in many fora. Languages have different
definitions for these terms and worse different nesting and
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?
4.) What prevents a third party plugin open-source from
On Dec 14, 2007, at 07:12, Shannon wrote:
4.) What prevents a third party plugin open-source from providing
Ogg support on Safari and Nokia browsers?
With XiphQT installed, WebKit nightlies play Ogg/Theora/Vorbis on Mac
OS X.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Shannon,
You seem to have missed Dave's point. The removal of the paragraph
mentioning OGG in the spec does not change anything. The spec is a
work-in-progress and the video tag is still under discussion. As such, the
spec has been changed to reflect that no decision regarding this has been
made
14 matches
Mail list logo
