Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 29th Apr 2010 23:04 UTC
Internet Explorer I am almost flabbergasted by the spin and blunt-face upon which this news is delivered. We were just discussing the pot calling the kettle black with Apple / Adobe and now Microsoft have also come out in favour of a closed video format for an open web--IE9's HTML5 video support will allow H264 only. Update Now that the initial shock is over, I've rewritten the article to actually represent news rather than something on Twitter.
Thread beginning with comment 421771
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: 1-2 Punch
by henderson101 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: 1-2 Punch"
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

Ima stop you there..

Jesus.. please stop quoting 10+ wikipedia articles as "basis" for any argument. You may as well be quoting Uncyclopedia...

You:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Troll

Your agenda?:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Twat

Your excuse for trolling?:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Myers-Briggs

OSNews user's major gripe:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/I_Can%27t_Believe_It%27s...

And not forgetting:
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/United_States_of_Tyranny_and_Dic...

Some people, it seems, are never happy unless they are arguing about something.

Edit: please also note the intended irony that many of those links have absolutely nothing, or very little directly, to do with my gripe.

Edited 2010-04-30 10:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -3

RE[8]: 1-2 Punch
by lemur2 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 11:13 in reply to "RE[7]: 1-2 Punch"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Ima stop you there..

Jesus.. please stop quoting 10+ wikipedia articles as "basis" for any argument. You may as well be quoting Uncyclopedia...


Ima stop you there.

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?421733
"Where is it written that it needs to be royalty free to be a standard?

I have sought out policy statements direct from the horses mouth, as it were, just in case there is any further idiotic challenge similar to the above:

http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice#sec-Goals
"

Despite my very best attempts, even going so far as linking direct to the applicable policy page of the very organisation that is writing the HTML5 specification, I still appear to have somehow failed to stop further idiotic ramblings trying to refute the W3C's requirement that the codec that will be specified within the W3C's HTML5 Recommendation must be royalty-free.

"the web video codec standard MUST be royalty-free"
Caveat: W3C policy will (begrudgingly) allow RAND terms only if there is no royalty-free technology available. In the case of the web video codec and the HTML5 standard, there is at least one suitable royalty-free codec available, so therefore, whichever web video codec is eventually specified in HTML5, it MUST be royalty-free. Therefore, h264 will NOT be that codec.

The policy of the organisation writing the HTML5 specification requires it to be so.

Why do you have such a problem trying to grasp this simple fact?

Edited 2010-04-30 11:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: 1-2 Punch
by henderson101 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 14:01 in reply to "RE[8]: 1-2 Punch"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

What has that got to do with what I said? I sometimes wonder if you are capable of reading... If anything, you actually PROVED my point. Douche.

Edit: Yay venom.

Edited 2010-04-30 14:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0