Re: [whatwg] video/audio feedback
If the author wants to show only a sample of a resource and not the full resource, I think she does it on purpose. It is not clear why it is vital for the viewer to have an _obvious_ way to view the whole resource instead; if it were the case, the author would provide for this. IMHO, Chris
Re: [whatwg] SVG extensions to canvas
2009/5/5 Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org: On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com wrote: svg has an intrinsic size (like video,img, and embed/object), the other have not. video and img usually have intrinsic sizes, but embed/object/iframe usually don't. svg often does and often does not. What is embed used for? Flash and videos. Both have intrinsic sizes What is object used for? Videos, Java applets and Silverlight. They all have intrinsic sizes. Basically, for what concerns rendering (the element being replaced in the CSS meaning of term), img,embed,object,svg have intrinsic sizes (they may be rescaled, but this is ortogonal) Note that I didn't include iframe in this list, because it could be rendered as if the child document contents were inside the parent document, within the iframe (auto height given by elements content); or it could be rendered as a window, with intrinsic sizes given by width/height. Rob -- He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. [Isaiah 53:5-6] Giovanni
Re: [whatwg] SVG extensions to canvas
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Giovanni Campagna scampa.giova...@gmail.com wrote: What is embed used for? Flash and videos. Both have intrinsic sizes What is object used for? Videos, Java applets and Silverlight. They all have intrinsic sizes. In principal, maybe they do, but typically those sizes are not exposed to the browser and are not used in layout. Basically, for what concerns rendering (the element being replaced in the CSS meaning of term), img,embed,object,svg have intrinsic sizes (they may be rescaled, but this is ortogonal) SVG images often don't have an intrinsic size. What's the intrinsic size of this image? svg xmlns=http://www.w3.org/2000/svg; linearGradient id=g x1=0 y1=0 x2=1 y2=0 stop stop-color=red offset=0/stop stop-color=lime offset=1/ /linearGradient rect x=0% y=0% width=100% height=100% fill=url(#g)/ /svg Rob -- He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Re: [whatwg] SVG extensions to canvas
SVG images often don't have an intrinsic size. What's the intrinsic size of this image? svg xmlns=http://www.w3.org/2000/svg; linearGradient id=g x1=0 y1=0 x2=1 y2=0 stop stop-color=red offset=0/stop stop-color=lime offset=1/ /linearGradient rect x=0% y=0% width=100% height=100% fill=url(#g)/ /svg Rob This is the same as tabletrtdtextarea/textarea/td/tr/table where the Ua shrink wraps the table but the textarea inherit the parents width. This would cause a 0 width table, but currentl user agents rely on other attributes to get the intrinsic dimensions, like rows and cols for the table. In the SVG case, the UA could use default dimensions, like 300 per 300 -- João Eiras Core Developer, Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
[whatwg] Just create a Microformat for it - thoughts on micro-data topic
bcc: Public RDFa Task Force mailing list (but not speaking as a member) Kyle Weems recent post[1] on CSSquirrel discusses[2] some of the more recent rumblings surrounding RDFa and Microformats as potential micro-data solutions. It specifically addresses a conversation between Ian and Tantek regarding Microformats: http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090430#l-693 Since I've seen this argument made numerous times now, and because it seems like a valid solution to someone that isn't familiar with the Microformats process, I'm addressing it here. The argument goes something like this: It looks like that markup problem X can be solved with a simple Microformat. This seems like a reasonable answer at first - Microformats, at their core, are simple tag-based mechanisms for data markup. Most semantic representation problems can be solved by explicitly tagging content. What most people fail to see, however, is that this statement trivializes the actual implementation cost of the solution. A Microformat is much more than a simple tag-based mechanism and it is far more difficult to create one than most people realize. Creating a Microformat is a very time consuming prospect, including: 1. Attempting to apply current Microformats to solve your problem. 2. Gathering examples to show how the content is represented in the wild. 3. Gathering common data formats that encode the sort of content you are attempting to express. 4. Analyzing the data formats and the content. 5. Deriving common vocabulary terms. 6. Proposing a draft Microformat and arguing the relevance of each term in the vocabulary. 7. Sorting out parsing rules for the Microformat. 8. Repeating steps 1-7 until the community is happy. 9. Testing the Microformat in the wild, getting feedback, writing code to support your specific Microformat. 10. Draft stage - if you didn't give up by this point. I say this as the primary editor of the hAudio Microformat - it is a grueling process, certainly not for those without thick skin and a strong determination to complete even simple vocabularies. Each one of those steps can take weeks or months to complete. I'm certainly not knocking the output of the Microformats community - the documents that come out of the community have usually been vetted quite thoroughly. However, to hear somebody propose Microformats as a quick or easy solution makes me cringe every time I hear it. The hAudio Microformat initiative started over 2 years ago and it's still going, still not done. So, while it is true that someone may want to put themselves through the headache of creating a Microformat to solve a particular markup problem, it is unlikely. One must only look at our track record - output for the Microformats community is at roughly 10 new vocabularies[3] (not counting rel-vocabularies and vocabularies not based directly on a previous data format). Compare that with the roughly 120-150 registered[3], active RDF vocabularies[4] via prefix.cc. Now certainly, quantity != quality, however, it does demonstrate that there is something that is causing more people to generate RDF vocabularies than Microformats vocabularies. Note that this argument doesn't apply to class-attribute-based semantic markup, but one should not make the mistake that it is easy to create a Microformat. -- manu [1] http://www.cssquirrel.com/comic/?comic=16 [2] http://www.cssquirrel.com/2009/05/04/comic-update-html5-manners/ [3] http://microformats.org/wiki/Main_Page#Specifications [4] http://prefix.cc/popular/all -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: A Collaborative Distribution Model for Music http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/04/04/collaborative-music-model/
[whatwg] Micro-data/Microformats/RDFa Interoperability Requirement
bcc: Public RDFa Task Force mailing list (but not speaking as a member) Thinking out loud... It seems as though there is potential here, based on the recent IRC conversations about the topic[1] and the use cases[2] posted by Ian, that WHATWG's use cases/requirements, and therefore solution, could diverge from both the Microformats community as well as the RDFa community use cases/requirements/solution. There should be a requirement, as Microformats and XHTML1.1+RDFa have required, that a potential solution to this issue should be compatible with both the Microformats and RDFa approaches. This would mean, at a high-level: - Not creating ambiguous cases for parser writers. - Not triggering output in a Microformats/RDFa parser as a side-effect of WHATWG micro-data markup. - Not creating an environment where WHATWG micro-data markup breaks or eliminates Microformats/RDFa markup. I think these are implied since HTML5 has gone to great lengths to provide backward compatibility. However, since I'm not clear on the details of how this community operates, I thought it better to be explicit about the requirement. -- manu [1]http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20090430#l-693 [2]http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-April/019374.html -- Manu Sporny President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: A Collaborative Distribution Model for Music http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/04/04/collaborative-music-model/
Re: [whatwg] Just create a Microformat for it - thoughts on micro-data topic
Ian Hickson wrote: Are you saying that RDF vocabularies can be created _without_ this due diligence? Who decides what the right due diligence is? One organization for *all* topics, ever? An RDF vocabulary can be created by the proper community, i.e. a music vocabulary by music experts, a copyright vocabulary by copyright experts, a biomedical vocabulary by biomedical experts, rather than assuming that one central group should be the centralized bottleneck for all development. In other words, RDF vocabularies function like the web does: decentralized, let the best sites/vocabs win. -Ben
Re: [whatwg] Just create a Microformat for it - thoughts on micro-data topic
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Ben Adida wrote: Ian Hickson wrote: Are you saying that RDF vocabularies can be created _without_ this due diligence? Who decides what the right due diligence is? The person writing the vocabulary, presumably. One organization for *all* topics, ever? I don't think that would really scale. Even for major languages, like HTML, we haven't found a single organisation to be a successful model. Manu's list didn't mention anything about a single organisation: On Tue, 5 May 2009, Manu Sporny wrote: Creating a Microformat is a very time consuming prospect, including: 1. Attempting to apply current Microformats to solve your problem. 2. Gathering examples to show how the content is represented in the wild. 3. Gathering common data formats that encode the sort of content you are attempting to express. 4. Analyzing the data formats and the content. 5. Deriving common vocabulary terms. 6. Proposing a draft Microformat and arguing the relevance of each term in the vocabulary. 7. Sorting out parsing rules for the Microformat. 8. Repeating steps 1-7 until the community is happy. 9. Testing the Microformat in the wild, getting feedback, writing code to support your specific Microformat. 10. Draft stage - if you didn't give up by this point. Surely all of the above apply equally to any RDFa vocabulary just as it would to _any_ vocabularly, regardless of the underlying syntax? Consider each of these in turn: 1: You have to make sure you're not reinventing the wheel, whatever language or vocabulary you are designing. 2: You have to make sure whatever language or vocabulary you are designing is something that your users can use. 3: If you do have to invent a new language or vocabulary, it makes sense to base it on the base of knowledge humanity has collected on the subject. 4: You have to study the information collected in steps 2 and 3 to make sense of it. 5: Deriving vocabulary names is a key part of any language design effort. 6: Justifying your design is a key part of any language design effort also. Not doing this would lead to a language or vocabulary with unnecessary parts, making it harder to use. 7: With any language, part of designing the vocabulary is defining how to process content that uses it. 8: Defining any language or vocabulary effectively must, clearly, involve a feedback loop with community review. 9: The most important practical test of a language is the test of deployment. Getting feedback and writing code is naturally part of writing a format. 10: You have to specify the language. As far as I can tell, the steps above are just the steps one would take for designing any format, language, or vocabulary. Are you saying that creating an RDF vocabulary _doesn't_ involve these steps? How is an RDF vocabulary defined if not using these steps? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E)\._.,--,'``.fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A/, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
