the reason ogg isnt included is becasue it isnt a *format* its a *container* just like avi it can hold mp3,mp4 almost anything trying to impliment that browser side would be a nightmare instead use h.264 and go up from there *these* actual codecs **will** advance becasue of the wide usage of them.

Ogg is a container but the spec was not just about ogg. It also included Vorbis and Theora. If you read the thread referenced then you will see that h.264 does not meet the current requirements because Apple and Nokia are scared of shadows everywhere. The consequent upshot of the FUD is a stalling of the whole process.

The reality is that if Apple are that afraid then itunes would be in paralysis as well. This is a political agenda, pure and simple, and unfortunately as the rest of the mailing list thread says:

Sadly, work to get a solution here is likely to occur mostly behind closed doors, since it’s principally a political problem and not a technical one. I am not actively involved in the work to find a solution here.

Quote from here

I think the whole move was intended to take the process out of the public eye and that is reprehensible.

I agree that the year timeline is ludicrous. Its obvious that the executives at a lot of these companies have either forgotten or have never known that the WWW is less than 15 years old.

For those of you who think I am exaggerating, I remember in 1992 using a dial-up connection and a Mosiac browser to access a rescource in Gopher.

Well, yes – partly. To set a tandard that a large copratioin cannot legally implement would be foolish. Patent holders sue the deepest pockets for infringement damages. That puts companies like Nokia and Apple – and Microsoft – (and their sockholders) at serious financial risk. And that goes a long way in understanding why corportions prefer proprietary technology while users and small companies prefer open source.

I’d much rather see buy-in from Microsoft who still control approx. 70% of the market until then all this talk of new standards is a big waste of time.

A few days ago I read an article that said it will take 10-15 years * to implement HTML5, at this rate that timescale is looking optimistic at best…

* Insert lots of swear words here

Meant to say that new technology has made copyright infringement shockingly convenient in some ways …

The RIAA and others have approached DRM with the attitude that they will crush the technology that allows file sharing of the creative works they are themselves responsible for protecting. International copyright laws do put the burden on the copyright holder to practice due diligence in protecting his/her copyright, and new technology has made copyright protection shockingly convenient in some ways (at the sacrifice of considerable quality, usually). If this tactic succeeds, though, RIAA and their ilk will be using the standards bodies to do that copyright enforcement work for them.

I’d like to see these working groups held above the economic fray, but maybe that’s unrealistic. Nokia and Apple seek to protect themselves from lawsuits by taking the extreme conservative view, instead of taking part in a legitimate discussion that leads to workable solutions. If they withdraw their support and the working group perseveres without them, they’ve surrendered their interest. That’s all. So call their bluff! We can’t please everyone, and in the end these standards are meant to be developed for the good of all.

Janis Ian is one artist who has spoken eloquently about why the RIAA’s approach has always been flawed. Look her up!

While legal considerations form a part of the landscape, that’s not how decisions should be made.