Maybe you should listen to the meta-argument, then.
I'm sick and tired of getting screwed by big companies (including
Apple), and I will *not* quietly accept it.
That's not unreasonable, but you have yet to give a solid technical
reason for reverting to the old text,
so far your only argument is that ogg should be kept because it is
FOSS, which on its own is insufficient.
My understanding based on the numerous comments from Ian is that a
goal of the video and audio
specs is that they can be implemented in FOSS, and knowing Ian there
is basically no chance of anyone
slipping anything that couldn't be passed him.
As far as wording goes using the word "SHOULD support" is far too
weak for HTML5, as SHOULD is relatively
meaningless, a much better requirement is that the wording be "MUST
support ..."; this is a sensible as
having a spec that says "SHOULD support ogg/vorbis and ogg/theora" is
fairly useless -- all that will happen
is that browser vendors (Apple, Mozilla, Opera, etc) will once again
be in a position where the spec's wording
means nothing and we end up with yet another standard which is not
tied to whatever becomes the actual
de facto standard, as implemented by the majority browser. This is
much worse for site compatibility for every
other browser as it then becomes necessary to determine what the de
facto standard actually *is*.
For this reason the old text was insufficient and Ian changed the
text to indicate that the final wording had
not yet been decided. This is not an indication that ogg transport
or that the vorbis or theora codecs are
being ignored, it is merely an indication that a decision has not yet
been made as to the final wording.
Note: I can't really comment on the actual issues involved in the
codec or transport selection as that's
not a region i specialise in.
--Oliver
