On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, alex wrote:
We have to take into accounts the needs of everyone. This includes
large companies. If large companies will only accept codecs that
they've already implemented, then that may have to be one of the
criteria.
This conflicts with:
Whatever solution
On Nov 26, 2006 2:38 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why isn't the following a conforming block of computer output too:
pre
!-- XXX ... --
samp12.12.../samp
?test ...?
/pre
Fixed, along with some examples.
--
Ian Hickson
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Robert Brodrecht wrote:
Something that is bugging me over on the W3C HTMLWG mailing list is the
want to drop acronym in favor of abbr. I'm emotionally attached to
acronym. I use it a lot, and really do feel like it is semantically
different from abbr. Asbjørn Ulsberg
Ian Hickson wrote:
Ogg isn't a choice, unfortunately. I agree that little choice remains,
though. But this is an open issue, and experts in the field are actively
trying to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.
Yes, Ogg most certainly is a choice. Every time you deny this, you give
more
Ian Hickson wrote:
At least with Theora we can avoid any known ones. All codecs have a
risk of submarine patents (though with extensive having been done for
Theora, at least that risk is lowered, if not eliminated completely), so
that argument is a wash, its on both sides of the equation,
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Ogg isn't a choice, unfortunately. I agree that little choice remains,
though. But this is an open issue, and experts in the field are
actively trying to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.
Yes, Ogg most certainly is a
Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way we can ever guarantee that there are no covering patents.
Whether a patent covers a technology or not really has more to do with
what the courts say than with what the patents say. If Apple say they
don't want to implement Ogg, then we
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Stewart Brodie wrote:
Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no way we can ever guarantee that there are no covering
patents. Whether a patent covers a technology or not really has more
to do with what the courts say than with what the patents say. If
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jeff McAdams wrote:
And this is exactly the way that Apple, Nokia, et al are hijacking this
process. They throw out some nebulous business reason for why they
don't want to use Ogg et al, and it gets bought, hook line and sinker.
Maybe there is some legitimacy to
From what I read, it is argued, that pre-existing use by large
companies is a good indication of less risk for submarine patents.
It is also argued, that Theora has not much pre-exsting use by large
companies, and among others, H.264 does.
Is this really true? I have a hard time believing that
On Dec 11, 2007, at 12:53, Ian Hickson wrote:
I am still on the fence about using cite in my thesis. Currently
I am
using it to mark up titles of works.
Any advice as to what the specshould say on the matter is welcome;
in fact
I have a whole folder of such advice that I'll be addressing
Ian Hickson schrieb:
Ogg Theora has not had an exhaustive patent search (you may be thinking of
Ogg Vorbis). In fact, it is likely the case that H.264 has had a _more_
exhaustive patent search than Ogg Theora.
Well, thanks to VP3 having been a commercial product licensed to
numerous
David Hyatt wrote:
Fear of submarine patents is only one reason Apple is not interested in
Theora. There are several other reasons. H.264 is a technically
superior solution to Theora. Ignoring IP issues, there would be no
reason to pick Theora over H.264. Everyone wants an open freely
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Ogg isn't a choice, unfortunately. I agree that little choice remains,
though. But this is an open issue, and experts in the field are
actively trying to resolve it to everyone's satisfaction.
Yes, Ogg most
I apologize in advance if this question has already
been broached. In what I have seen of several of the
ogg threads, I seem to see the question being danced
around, but not directly addressed.
Part one of the question:
What guarantees do Apple, Nokia, et. al. offer that
their corporate-blessed
On Dec 12, 2007 1:07 AM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what the courts say than with what the patents say. If Apple say they
don't want to implement Ogg, then we have to find another solution.
(Similarly -- Opera, Mozilla, et al, don't want to implement H.264. So we
have to find a
Ian, are you saying that not implementing a SHOULD statement in the spec
would make a browser non-compliant with HTML5?
Are you saying that if a vendor does not implement the OPTIONAL Ogg
support then they would not use HTML5 at all?
I'm not being sarcastic here. I'd actually like you to
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, L. David Baron wrote:
In this case, most implementors following the SHOULD and implementing
Theora might help companies whose concern is submarine patents become
more comfortable about shipping Theora, especially if some of the
implementors are companies similar in size or
2007/12/11, Krzysztof Żelechowski:
The + sign does not belong to the user input, it is a shortcut the
following explanation:
OL LI press KBD Shift/KBD
LI press KBD F3/KBD LI releaseKBD F3/KBD
LI releaseKBD Shift/KBD /OL
(That is how I have to explain it to my mom; otherwise she always
2007/12/11, Krzysztof Żelechowski:
Allowing the script to wait until the transaction completes would be
enough to provide synchronization, wouldn't it? A stubborn programmer
can still do it: make a transaction set an event upon completion and
make the script loop until that event is set.
FWIW, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only allow unencumbered formats
on the site. Video MUST be Ogg Theora. Compressed audio better be Ogg.
wikipedia.org is something like #8 in the world at present, so this is
set to be a significant content repository actually used by people. A
video tag which
On Dec 12, 2007 4:08 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El Mié 12 Dic 2007, Robert Sayre escribió:
On Dec 11, 2007 6:51 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SHOULD is toothless.
Spefications aren't laws. MUSTs are toothless as well.
It carries absolutely no
Here's a rundown of the major media players and their support:
Windows Media - Requires third party pluginhttp://www.illiminable.com/ogg/
Quicktime 7 - Requires Xiph.org plugin http://xiph.org/quicktime/
Real Player - Requires Helix pluginhttps://helixcommunity.org/frs/?group_id=7
In effect, no
If by Corporate Blessed, you mean codecs like H.264, there's a very simple
answer to that. Nokia and Apple pay licensing fees to a company called MPEG
LA. MPEG LA indemnifies Nokia and Apple from patent lawsuits over the use of
MPEG-related codecs. Should anyone come forward with a new patent, the
(I've been watching the emails fly around with great interest, but there has
been a rather significant volume. You'll have to forgive me if the following
question has already been answered.)
It seems to me that the argument keeps coming back to the fact that H.264/AAC
has patent protection
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 11:22 -0800, Aaron Boodman pisze:
With an asynchronous API, it gets quite a bit messier. Here's an
example of what it might look like:
var messages = incoming_data;
db.transaction(function(tx) {
processNextMessage(tx);
});
function
On 12 Dec 2007, at 01:41, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
1) maybe (I've heard game vendors cited, not sure which ones)
I know someone already posted a list, but it is used within all Unreal
Engine 2.5 (i.e., UT 2004) and Unreal Engine 3 (i.e., UT 3) games
(which I'm sure you can find a long
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:23 AM, David Gerard wrote:
FWIW, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only allow unencumbered formats
on the site. Video MUST be Ogg Theora. Compressed audio better be Ogg.
wikipedia.org is something like #8 in the world at present, so this is
set to be a significant content
On 12 Dec 2007, at 14:23, David Gerard wrote:
FWIW, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only allow unencumbered formats
on the site. Video MUST be Ogg Theora. Compressed audio better be Ogg.
Why must video just one of many unencumbered formats?
So far we have had zero patent trolls come
On 12/12/2007, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Dec 2007, at 14:23, David Gerard wrote:
FWIW, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only allow unencumbered formats
on the site. Video MUST be Ogg Theora. Compressed audio better be Ogg.
Why must video just one of many unencumbered
Ian Hickson wrote:
I've temporarily removed the requirements on video codecs from the HTML5
spec, since the current text isn't helping us come to a useful
interoperable conclusion. When a codec is found that is mutually
acceptable to all major parties I will update the spec to require that
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 02:01:34 +0100, Shannon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Microsoft: Heavy investment in WMV and DRM. 'Essential patent holder' in
H.264. Major shareholder in Apple
On 12/12/2007, Arve Bersvendsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe Microsoft sold off their Apple stock years ago.
On 12 Dec 2007, at 17:44, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Dec 2007, at 14:23, David Gerard wrote:
FWIW, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only allow unencumbered
formats
on the site. Video MUST be Ogg Theora. Compressed audio better be
I think the issue you're forgetting is when opening a transaction can
fail. The transaction callback is only called when the transaction is
successfully opened and you know that it is starting out valid.
~Brady
On Dec 12, 2007, at 9:37 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
.. Speaking of batches,
On 29/12/2006, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would you need a plugin for code/ ?
For the ability to distinguish the syntax and semantics of varying
types of code, in a virtually infinite set of possible different
syntaces and semantics.
Currently, Web Applications 1.0 and
Also as Maciej said earlier, we at Apple did not ask that the SHOULD
wording be removed and had stated we could live with it.
dave
On Dec 12, 2007, at 1:12 PM, David Hyatt wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
David Hyatt wrote:
Fear of submarine patents is
.. Speaking of batches, in my adventure of implementing the new SQL
spec, it looked like the transaction callback is mostly a functional
equivalent of a queue.
So, one idea would be explicitly make it an queue-like structure,
rather than a function callback:
var db = openDatabase('test');
var tx
Can you help me understand the problem you're pointing out? The
difference between the idea outlined and the current spec is the
absence of the transaction callback, but it basically (I think) has
the equivalent net effect.
db.createTransaction is just a mutable list of statements until the
(this might sound a bit odd, but bear with me)
How do we test a patient that doesn't want to be tested?, said House.
I don't think there are any easy answers here. About the best solution I
can come up with is to provide browser detection of media formats. That way
web developers can do a
Geoffrey Sneddon schrieb:
Apart from those two, the others I can think of are those that are in
excess of twenty years old (and therefore their patents have expired),
such as H.260.
I couldn't find anything insightful about H.260. Sure you don't mean
H.120, which is a 1982 video codec I
Hi Guido,
The point of a patent research is to reduce the risk. Since companies
seem to be afraid there may be submarine patents and thus Theora
expresses a large risk for companies to support it, the way to reduce
the perceived risk is to do an independent analysis of the technology
incorporated
On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
David Hyatt wrote:
Fear of submarine patents is only one reason Apple is not
interested in Theora. There are several other reasons. H.264 is a
technically superior solution to Theora. Ignoring IP issues, there
would be no
David Gerard writes:
In any case, the point remains: Theora is the only practical option
for video on Wikimedia sites at present, so that's one top-10 source
of video that will greatly be enabled for the end user by HTML5 having
a video tag with Ogg Theora as the default (even as a SHOULD).
On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Can you help me understand the problem you're pointing out? The
difference between the idea outlined and the current spec is the
absence of the transaction callback, but it basically (I think) has
the equivalent net effect.
In the current
On 12 Dec 2007, at 19:30, Maik Merten wrote:
Geoffrey Sneddon schrieb:
Apart from those two, the others I can think of are those that are in
excess of twenty years old (and therefore their patents have
expired),
such as H.260.
I couldn't find anything insightful about H.260. Sure you
On 12/12/2007, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Dec 2007, at 17:44, David Gerard wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Dec 2007, at 14:23, David Gerard wrote:
FWIW, Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons only allow unencumbered
formats
on the
On 12/12/2007, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Dec 2007, at 14:23, David Gerard wrote:
So far we have had zero patent trolls come calling. I wonder why
that is.
Do you have enough money to pay a fine a similar size to what MS got
last year? If you don't have enough money,
Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 08:59 +, Ian Hickson pisze:
Most people don't mark up abbreviations or acronyms at all, they only mark
them up at all to give the expansions generally. And for this purpose, it
doesn't really matter which is which (not to mention that different
people
On 12/12/2007, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not quite. That's one top-10 source of video that will greatly be
enabled by browsers supporting Theora.
Your claim (that it would benefit from the spec saying browsers SHOULD
support Theora) is only true if there are browsers which would only
On Dec 12, 2007, at 21:08, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
The browser can just send an Accept: application/ogg, video/mpeg,
mime/type
and the server can decide which file to serve, and if no content type
satisfies that, then the server returns the appropriate HTTP
response which
should make
They are acting with their shareholders in mind. They have everything to
gain and nothing to loose as they all have their platforms, i.e. Window, OS
X, Itunes, cellular handset, that they control/use their propiety formats.
It costs them to switch and they have the possibility of loosing their
Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 14:44 +0100, Thomas Broyer pisze:
Only kbd inside kbd would be boxed then, so the + sign is not a problem:
In this case you have to say KBD twice in simple cases, which is
unacceptable because it is unexpected and it is going to be
overlooked/ignored by the
Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 00:21 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
Look, guys. I don't think I've explained myself well, partly because I've
come on too strong. There is no evidence of malice. There's also no
evidence of profiteering. There *is* evidence of immorality, if you
Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 00:11 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
I'd rephrase it as
# Has had traction, time and exposure in the market, enough so patent threats
should have arisen already.
That is, as a study of a troll's lifestyle shows, indefinite.
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 19:26 -0500, Jeff McAdams pisze:
If the text is changed to move away from a free and open solution to
something that is going to be encumbered, you better believe I'm going
to be up in arms about it, and I will not apologize for it. This change
is exactly that
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 18:53 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
Wanna know what happened to the last troll that attacked free software? Ask
Darl McBride. Everyone is under the possibility of constant attack from
trolls.
He was not a patent troll, he was acting for Microsoft and
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 18:21 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
That's no reason to NOT SUGGEST Ogg Vorbis / Theora. No one here is saying
that HTML5 should forbid proprietary codecs -- all we're claiming for is the
judicious and well-deserved mention of two free technologies in
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 16:37 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
Well, instead of hoping, maybe we can draw more attention to this issue so
public pressure helps us do the job.
This mailing list is not the best place to draw more attention though.
It seems you are wasting your time
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 23:20 +0100, alex pisze:
First, I would like to thank you for the feedback, and I must admit it
is a rather sensitive situation, more so then I imagined at first. But
because of the nature of submarine patents, I don't quite see how you
can actually find a
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 13:21 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
alternatives -- thank god for Linux). I don't want to experience it all over
again, especially since I know that even today, that crapware isn't even
gonna be made for Linux, and I'm going to be screwed again.
Dear Chris,
From the Oxford English Dictionary online (accessed today):
initialism: The use of initials; a significative group of initial
letters. Now spec. a group of initial letters used as an abbreviation
for a name or expression, each letter or part being pronounced
separately (contrasted
Dnia 13-12-2007, Cz o godzinie 00:43 +, Sam Kuper pisze:
Dear Chris,
From the Oxford English Dictionary online (accessed today):
initialism: The use of initials; a significative group of initial
letters. Now spec. a group of initial letters used as an abbreviation
for a name or
62 matches
Mail list logo
