http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020620.html
Unfortunately OGG Theora didn't make it as the default codec for the
HTML5 video element in the spec. Until one of the two major formats
(Theora and H264) is clearly the major format the HTML5 spec will not
specify a
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking a term-limited (one year) full-time
Project Manager for its new Bookshelf Project (text below). Feel free
to share.
Link to WMF jobs:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Project_Manager_Bookshelf
Job Title: Project Manager
Employment
**
____ _ __ _
/ / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___
\ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \
\ /\ /| | | |/ /| | | | | __/
\/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___|
.org
Year: 2009 Week: 27 Number: 110
2009/7/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
H264 already plays in, IIRC, 98% of browsers through flash.
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Adobe claims around 99% of all web
users to have Flash installed.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Hay (Husky) hus...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Flash isn't generally available out of the box, though, is it?
In theory, no. In practice, yes. Adobe claims around 99% of all web
users to have
Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia Foundations site
would be
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/;
That is 96 chars, with spaces, of 140 bytes available in a SMS. For some
languages the attribution will take more than
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia Foundations site
would be
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/;
That is 96 chars, with spaces, of 140 bytes
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia Foundations site
would be
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I actually was not aware that the terms now ask you to link not only to the
article, but to the license as well. That is a burden.
Linking to the license (or providing it's actual text) is an explicit
requirement of CC-BY-SA.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
h264 codecs.
No, it's not. H.264 is patented and you need to pay licensing fees to
use it. It's not an open standard and should not be used on the web
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
h264 codecs.
No, it's not. H.264
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
A compromise is a win-win.
Compromising is not a good idea per se. It's only a good idea if it
advances your goals more than refusing to compromises. Some
compromises are bad and should not be accepted. If you put enough
--
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 16:09:00 +0100
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: How do you fully consult the
community consensus?
To: Wikimedia Foundation
2009/7/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
A compromise is a win-win. In the absence of a compromise its a lose-lose.
Except that H264 wins since almost all of us already support it.
Relying on something rendered radioactive by the software patents
attached to it is not a win.
It would be
Sorry, where I said AbuseFilter I meant to say FlaggedRevisions. I'm not
sure on how AbuseFilter came to be agreed on.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Jennifer Riggs jri...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
I'm curious. In your
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
snip
I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any
discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had a
major effect on Wikipedia that made it much harder to use. And now we are
stuck
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
snip
I really like the ParserFunctions example. Enabled with hardly any
discussion and now used 500,000 times on the English Wikipedia. It had a
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com wrote:
(For the record, I'm referring to
the earliest history of ParserFunctions. I'm not sure about the
history of #expr and some of the later bits.)
#expr was present since the first commit (r13505).
Purely out of ignorance, why do we like ogg, but not H264? Or is it not
that we don't /like/ it, but rather we simply don't support it as a
format for whatever reason?
Thanks,
-Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
20 matches
Mail list logo
