Am 17.06.2011 04:44, schrieb dmex: > Q: What is the most annoying behavior on email discussion lists? > > A: People who don't contribute to the discussion like the Executive Director? > ;) > You did of course read his not top-posted contribution to the discussion, right?
> Am I emailing play school? One of these things is not like the others, one of > these things does not belong. > I doubt being condescending will get you anywhere... > A codec that has patent issues and not finalized is something that does not > belong. End of story. > > Do I really need to list reasons why this having this codec listed on this > document is a bad idea? > That would be a good start since apparently at least one person on this list disagrees with your assessment. And just to have "contributed" something to the discussion: I personally don't care if Opus is in the XEP if it is in the current form (clearly stating the situation on IPR issues), but I think it's somewhat strange to include information on something that is still very much in flux. -- Florian Zeitz > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:stpe...@stpeter.im] > Sent: Friday, 17 June 2011 9:21 AM > To: XMPP Standards > Cc: dmex > Subject: Re: [Standards] LAST CALL: XEP-0266 (Codecs for Jingle Audio) > > First of all, Section of XEP-0266 is purely informational -- it lists > selected codecs that might meet the criteria set out in Section 2. I'd agree > that it would be premature to make Opus RECOMMENDED, but this spec doesn't do > that, so I don't understand your objection. > > Peter >
