Re: Because then it's not a standard!
Not in the purest sense, no. However the only bit that isn't "standard" in my approach is the codec...which is specifiable. My point is that if they can't grow up and agree on a codec, let's make it specifiable and move on. I don't give a rat's ass about who has the more "pure" philosophy, but I do care about anything that holds up innovation. HTML5 is being held up by this dumb video tag? Fine, set the standard up so you don't have to specify the codec. Split the codec war out into a separate committee with the goal that they should pick one for ratification in HTML 5.1
We can then move forward while still letting the little children fight their pedantic little wars. Honestly, it’s things like this that make me ashamed to be an IT geek. Option A is a bunch of greedy twats trying to stifle competition or screw the consumer out of yet more money, (think every IT company ever that has “made it big.”) Option B is a bunch of arrogant and inflexible geeks who are convinced they know better than anyone else. (Beautiful examples are the purists who decided we aren’t “allowed” NAT or private addresses in IPV6 because despite honest and legitimate requests for them from business users, etc. it’s sight doth offend them and they knoweth what we need and want better than those who would use the tech. Or OpenSSL folk who repeatedly say “thou shalt not be allowed transfer resume support on SFTP, because we decree thou shalt use rsync for everything.” I could go on for days.)
My point is that it’s about time that the entire industry grows up, stops the petty and pointless bickering, and works on advancing technologies. If we can’t agree on one aspect of a standard, table that for later, and let’s not hold up the rest of the innovation contained therein.