Some delegations has attracted the attention on audio support on OOXML, asking for a list of supported audio codecs:
Comment ID | Comment (justification for change) by the MB | Proposed change by the MB |
---|---|---|
BR-0052 | No mention is made of what audio formats or codecs are permitted. | This item should be reviewed considering interoperability and flexibility. |
CO-0219 | The audio codecs allowed for the audioFile element are not specified. There are many proprietary and non-portable codecs which would break portability of a document. | Define a set of patent-free portable audio codecs as base. Whenever other codecs are used, the document must be marked as extended (see comment for Part 1, Section 2.6) |
FR-0357 | No mention is made of what audio formats orcodecs are permitted. | An interoperable set of formats should be specified. |
GB-0308 | No mention is made of what audio formats or codecs are permitted. | An interoperable set of formats should be specified. |
PT-0104 | No mention is made of what audio formats or codecs are permitted. | An interoperable set of formats should be specified. |
US-0150 | No mention is made of what audio formats or codecs are permitted. | An interoperable set of formats should be specified. |
Delegations are asking for a list of codecs:
Proposed change: An interoperable set of formats should be specified.
Here is the ECMA non-answer:
If a rendering application cannot process external content of the content type specified, then the specified content can be ignored. [Note: A list of suggested audio types is provided in Part 1, §15.2.2. end note]
When you go reading the Part 1, §15.2.2, there is no list of codecs.
And the same issue and non-answer is for the video codecs:
Comment ID | Comment (justification for change) by the MB | Proposed change by the MB |
---|---|---|
CO-0211 | The video codecs allowed for the video element are not specified. There are many proprietary and non-portable codecs which would break portability of a document. | Define a set of patent-free portable video codecs as base. Whenever other codecs are used, the document must be marked as extended (see comment for Part 1, Section 2.6) |
Here is the ECMA non-answer, where they agreed to refuse to fix a list:
The video element does not specify the actual video file that is used by the animation; as such, we do not believe that it needs a list of potential codecs.
ECMA also does not fix the problems with another comment from Colombia:
Comment ID | Comment (justification for change) by the MB | Proposed change by the MB |
---|---|---|
CO-0084 | The type of video element allowed is not specified. Use of proprietary codecs will break portability of a document, and may present patent problems for implementation, since they are outside of the scope of this specification. | Specify a set of patent free, portable video codecs as base, and whenever other codecs are used, mark the document as extended (See comment for Part 1, Section 2.6) |
ECMA continues to do not provide a FIXED LIST of supported video codecs:
Proposed Disposition
Agreed; the description of this element would be improved by referencing a set of suggested formats, as was suggested for other similar items (e.g. image formats) in other national body comments. However, we believe that rather than duplicate this information, we should just reference the list defined in Part 1. Also, we agree that this list should contain a set of portable codecs as the suggested base set. However, we do not believe that preventing the use of other codecs is appropriate, as it will prevent innovation. Accordingly, the following changes will be made:Part 4, §2.3.3.17, page 259, line 5:
This element specifies a location within a document where the specified parent image shall be treated as a placeholder for an embedded movie. [Note: A list of suggested video types is provided in Part 1, §15.2.16. e note]
Part 1, §15.2.16, page 157, row
Content Type: Any supported video type.
[Note: Some example content types are:
video/x-ms-asf http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/format/asfspec.aspx
video/avi http://www.the-labs.com/Video/odmlff2-avidef.pdf
video/mpg ISO/IEC 13818
video/mpeg ISO/IEC 13818
video/ogg http://www.theora.org/doc/Theora.pdf//
video/x-ms-wm http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/format/asfspec.aspx
video/quicktime http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/quicktime.html
video/vc1 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4425//
end note]
ECMA removes some Microsoft's formats from the list of examples. Does that mean that ASF and WMV are excluded from the list of supported codecs? Of course not, it is a list of suggestions, and Any supported video type is supported, and the ECMA intentions are pretty clear:
we do not believe that preventing the use of other codecs is appropriate, as it will prevent innovation
And when it comes to address the reference to Quicktime, it is a patented format which requires royalty payments to MPEG-LA suckers.
Again, ECMA seems devoted to say: Good Bye Interoperability!