On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
[snip]
I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent
fees for doing so.
No more or less trouble than you would have gotten in had you gotten
it from ffmpeg instead of us, which combined with the fact that we
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Daniel Berlin dan...@google.com wrote:
[snip]
I would, however, get in trouble for not having paid patent
fees
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Peter Kasting pkast...@google.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the particular parallel you've drawn there is the
appropriate one.
And I think you failed to answer the line in my email
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Frank Hellenkampjo...@depagecms.net wrote:
[snip]
Well, the thing is (perhabs unfortunately because of patents and
liscensing) that you can use h264 with the video tag (in safari and
chrome), but at the same time you can send the same video to every old
browser
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Chris DiBonacdib...@gmail.com wrote:
Comparing Daily Motion to Youtube is disingenuous. If yt were to
switch to theora and maintain even a semblance of the current youtube
quality it would take up most available bandwidth across the internet.
[snip]
I'm not
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Mikko
Rantalainenmikko.rantalai...@peda.net wrote:
[snip]
Patent licensing issues aside, H.264 would be better baseline codec than
Theora.
I don't know that I necessarily agree there.
H.264 achieves better efficiency (quality/bitrate) than Theora, but it
does
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
I looked into this question with the help of some experts on video decoding
and embedded hardware. H.264 decoders are available in the form of ASICs,
and many high volume devices use ASICs rather than general-purpose
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
For the mobile phones where I have specific knowledge regarding their
components, I am not at liberty to disclose that information.
Unsurprising but unfortunate.
There are other people trying to feel out the implications
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Jonas Sickingjo...@sicking.cc wrote:
[snip]
I think the first bullet has been demonstrated to be false. The
relative quality between theora and h.264 is still being debated, but
the arguments are over a few percent here or there. Arguments that
theora is simply
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
* In Safari with XiphQT, we can *probably* detect Theora's MIME type
as being supported and it will Just Work (more or less).
I'm now being told that our workaround of checking for system mime
types stopped working and isn't
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
I don't think we did anything intentional in 4.0.2 to break detection of
XiphQT. If you have a solid reproducible case, please file a bug. On the
other hand, I suspect the canPlayType fix will have shipped by the time we
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
I thought your plan was to use Cortado for plugins that don't have
video+Theora. Why would you single out Safari users for a worse
experience?
As david mentioned, Cortado is a worse experience. What we've been
planning was
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Robert O'Callahanrob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
2009/7/10 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) ife...@google.com
To me, this seems like a great test if canPlayType actually works in
practice. In the perfect world, it would be great to do
getElementById('video'), createElement,
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Maciej Stachowiakm...@apple.com wrote:
On Jul 10, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Jeff Walden wrote:
On 10.7.09 17:44, Ian Hickson wrote:
The design is based around the assumption that we will eventually find a
common codec so that fallback won't ever be needed in
I have no opinion on the need being adequately covered by other attributes, but…
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Remcoremc...@gmail.com wrote:
For an image this usually works well. An image usually doesn't convey
a lot of meaning. It can be replaced by a simple sentence like A
young dog plays
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Isn't if inefficient to request the whole page and then throw most of
it out? With proper AJAX you can just request the bits you want.
==
This is a valid
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Kit Grose k...@iqmultimedia.com.au wrote:
[snip]
I expected (incorrectly, in this case) that if I only produced one
source element (an MP4), Firefox would drop down to use the fallback
content, as it does if I include an object element for a format not
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Brian Campbell lam...@continuation.org
wrote:
But no, this isn't something I would consider to be production quality.
But perhaps if the WebGL typed arrays catch on, and start being
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Hugh Guiney hugh.gui...@gmail.com wrote:
And when other established terms are used, like 480p—which, in
virtually every other context, refers to 720x480, the most common of
the acceptable resolution for DVDs—yet the video is *854*x480, that's
also confusing.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Tim Hutt tdh...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
It's up the UA. It can ping the server if it wants. If I were writing
the UI for firefox, for example I would have it do the following:
[snip]
3. If the default isn't the highest quality, show a little Better
quality
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Tim Hutt tdh...@gmail.com wrote:
Good point. You mean something like a .ram file? I think both
techniques should be supported -- a metadata file is extra hassle to
set up if you /are/ the HTML and video author, and it involves an
extra file download which will
I thought the list might appreciate this news regarding plugin-added
video/ support in Internet Explorer:
http://cristianadam.blogspot.com/2010/02/ie-tag-take-two.html
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2010-02-21 at 20:26 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I thought the list might appreciate this news regarding plugin-added
video/ support in Internet Explorer:
http://cristianadam.blogspot.com/2010/02/ie-tag
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote:
I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the specification,
but the fact that such licensing is being considered for what is supposed to
be open free is counter productive to the advancement of web
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
AFAIK, at least Firefox shows a fullscreen option already in the context
menu. What makes you think there is another attribute needed (besides
@controls) ?
So... an interesting bit of fun
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2010-06-20 at 21:06 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
nils-dagsson-mosk...@dieweltistgarnichtso.net wrote:
AFAIK, at least Firefox shows a fullscreen
On 8/31/10, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can't come up with any actual problems with what IE is doing,
then why is anything else even being considered? There's a very
clear-cut problem with relying on MIME types: MIME types are often
wrong and hard for authors to
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
The Ogg page begins with the 4 bytes OggS, which is what Opera (GStreamer)
checks for. For additional safety, one could also check for the
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Ingo Chao i4c...@googlemail.com wrote:
2010/11/13 timeless timel...@gmail.com:
[snip]
Good contracts with the component's providers of a mashup are
neccessary, but not sufficient to resolve the mixed https/http issue
in reality. Another ingredient for a secure
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Michael Dale d...@ucsc.edu wrote:
On 01/13/2011 01:44 AM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
Changing the default at this point wouldn't really hurt since not all
browsers are doing exact seeking anyway, right? I think that keyframe
seeking is more often what you want
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Coenen coenen@gmail.com wrote:
I still want the API to support seeks to exact frames.
eg when I build some GUI that allows the user to click on a button that says
explosion shot 1 at 00:31:02.15 then I want the player to seek to
00:31:02.15 exactly and
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com wrote:
Since, as you say, the behavior is currently inconsistent, there is still
time to agree on something that makes sense and have everyone implement
that. I think the best default is keyframe seeking and haven't seen any
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Roger Hågensen resca...@emsai.net wrote:
Accurate seeking also assumes things about the codec/container/encoding.
If a format does not have keyframes then it does have something
equivalent.
Formats without keyframes can probably (I might be wrong there) seek
for a particular video instance.
Good point.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
One question about inexact seeking is what should the client do when
the current playtime is closer to the requested time than what the
inexact seek would provide?
The above would
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
The language I'd prefer is fast. Fast may be exact, or it might
just be to the nearest keyframe, or something in between. It might
just start you over at the beginning of the stream.
That is putting a
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
silviapfeiff...@gmail.com wrote:
The language I'd prefer is fast. Fast may be exact
36 matches
Mail list logo
