[Nottingham] webm & vp8

[James Holland]

I'm not going to continue, because this is the extent of my knowledge.
I'm sure LXF will run some kind of FAQ on it

On 7 June 2010 21:55, Martin Garton <martin at stupids.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 21:44 +0100, James Holland wrote:
>> Well it's a good thing in general, but I dislike the way they
>> essentially finalised an unfinished product.
>> They've drawn an arbitrary line in development and said "This is it:
>> This is the standard."
>
> I agree that they could have worked on this more, but I also think they
> understandably wanted to get it out quick before x264 became
> irreversibly entrenched as the only format for html5.
>
> Also, they have finalised the spec, but there is still massive scope for
> improvements to the encoder.
>
> In any case, I think vp8 is a huge leap for free formats.
>
> Finally is it possible that some of the apparently unfinished aspects of
> the spec were deliberately left "unfinished" in order to avoid
> infringing on patents on the h264 techniques?  I've read this in a few
> places, none of them authoritative.
>
> --
> Martin.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nottingham mailing list
> Nottingham at mailman.lug.org.uk
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/nottingham
>



-- 
R. James Holland
0115 9 509 789