Actually Michael, I had to go back and read both links a second time, so I understand Wofgang's confusion. But I agree with your conclusion because it makes more sense. The problem was the language.
"Motion to retain the provisional approval of the CODECs until the level of information concerning the licensing terms for VC-9 is the same as the level of information concerning the licensing terms for AVC/H.264." "not approved".
Now my best guess is that this motion was intended by a Blu-ray member to coyly keep VC-9 on a lower status level at this time, which would have been the result if it had been 'approved'. The 'not approved' is somewhat ambiguous, because it could mean that VC-9 was mandated, OR that it had lost even its provisional standing until the level of licensing terms became clearer. It really could have meant either. (And these are the guys we're entrusting the future of Hi-Def DVD to? :rolleyes: )
However, it makes no sense to me that the DVD Forum would drop VC-9, because even if they didn't intend to use it, it is still a valuable negotiating chip to use against the Blu-ray side, due to the involvement of many of the CE manufacturers in the MPEG-2/H.264 codec patents. The studios want to see this succeed, and I doubt if they care whether (poor) Microsoft ends up with the short end of the stick, if it will help to avoid a format war.
EDIT: Oh and btw, as of about a month back, the Blu-ray Founders were reborn as the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) in order to solicit new members.
No matter where you go, there you are