Revision as of 08:42, 27 January 2018 edit 2601:600:9880:522b:1017:2487:5fe:abc5 (talk) Article sounds like it was written like a Vorbis activist at times. Tag: Visual edit ← Previous edit		Revision as of 09:26, 27 January 2018 edit undo J. M. (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 16,757 edits m →Opposition Next edit →
Line 71: \|url = http://www.w3.org/2007/08/video/positions/Nokia.pdf \|accessdate = 2008-02-25 }}</ref> states that "a W3C-led standardization of a 'free' codec, or the active endorsement of proprietary technology such as Ogg [...] by W3C, is, in our opinion, not helpful". [[Xiph.org]]'s codecs, while licensed under a [[BSD licenses#BSD-style licenses\|BSD-style]] [[permissive free software license]], implement a standard controlled by Xiph.org themselves, rather than a multi-vendor community such as MPEG. [[Apple Inc.]], a member of the [[MPEG LA]], has also opposed the inclusion of Ogg formats in the HTML standard on the grounds that [[H.264]] performs better and is already more widely supported, citing patents on their codec's efficiency and the lack of precedents of "Placing requirements on format support", even at the "SHOULD" level, in HTML specifications.<ref name="apple-ogg">{{cite mailing list . [[Apple Inc.]], a member of the [[MPEG LA]], has also opposed the inclusion of Ogg formats in the HTML standard on the grounds that [[H.264]] performs better and is already more widely supported, citing patents on their codec's efficiency and the lack of precedents of "Placing requirements on format support", even at the "SHOULD" level, in HTML specifications.<ref name="apple-ogg">{{cite mailing list \|url=http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2007-March/010392.html \|title=[whatwg] Codecs (was Re: Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements)

Ogg formats in HTML5: Difference between revisions