On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Marco
Schusterma...@harddisk.is-a-geek.org wrote:
Public congresses, schools without protection for ARP spoofing (I got 0wned
this way myself), maybe corporate networks w/o proper network setup... they
all allow sniffing or in-line traffic manipulation.
Not that
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Aryeh
Gregorsimetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
* We could support video/audio on conformant user agents without
the use of JavaScript. There's no reason we should need JS for
Firefox 3.5, Chrome 3, etc.
Of course, that could be done without switching
Okay, first thoughts:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's clear at this point that HTML 5 will be the next version of HTML.
It was obvious for a long time that XHTML was going nowhere, but now
it's official:
On 07/07/2009, at 7:37 AM, Remember the dot wrote:
Okay, first thoughts:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
It's clear at this point that HTML 5 will be the next version of
HTML.
It was obvious for a long
Hi all,
I'm developing the new OSM SlippyMap with Aude Avar. As our code has
now made it into the Wikimedia trunk, I could use SVN commit access.
As for my contributions, I externalized the JavaScript code and made
it object-oriented, added support for image placeholders (i.e. click
to get
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Yes, I'm aware all this is possible in theory. Even more trivially,
just set up a nice high-quality wireless hotspot and do whatever you
want with the traffic. But do you know of any time this has
*actually* *happened*? Where a malicious person has successfully
staged a
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Remember the
dotrememberthe...@gmail.com wrote:
That page clearly says that there will be an XHTML 5. XHTML is not going
away.
By XHTML I meant the family of standards including XHTML 1.0, 1.1,
2.0, etc.. XHTML 5 is identical to HTML 5 except with a different
Marco Schuster wrote:
Public congresses, schools without protection for ARP spoofing (I got 0wned
this way myself), maybe corporate networks w/o proper network setup... they
all allow sniffing or in-line traffic manipulation.
Not that uncommon attacks, and when you know the colleague you do
Did that, thanks!
Cheers,
Christian
On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Chad wrote:
Drop a note on the [[Commit access requests]] page
on Mediawiki.org too. Trying to keep requests all in one
place these days :)
-Chad
On Jul 7, 2009 7:00 AM, Christian Becker ch...@beckr.org wrote:
Hi all,
Great, looks like HTML5 vs. XHTML fight is infecting everything.
Just my 2 cents - I don't think that switching to new not yet W3C
Recomendation is a good idea - many extensions and features are not yet
finished (e.g. RDFa support for it) and considering a huge commotion in this
area it might not
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Sergey
Chernyshevsergey.chernys...@gmail.com wrote:
Just my 2 cents - I don't think that switching to new not yet W3C
Recomendation is a good idea - many extensions and features are not yet
finished (e.g. RDFa support for it)
Much of the spec is very stable. We
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Aryeh
Gregorsimetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
Much of the spec is very stable. We would not be using any part
that's likely to change -- in most cases, only parts that have
multiple interoperable implementations. Such parts of the spec will
not change
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Remember the
dotrememberthe...@gmail.com wrote:
Why be cruel to our bot operators? XHTML is simpler and more consistent than
tag soup HTML, and it's a lot easier to find a good XML parser than a good
HTML parser.
Because it will make the
I think if the playback system is java in ~any browser~ we should
~softly~ inform people to get a browser with native support if they
want a high quality video playback experience.
The cortado applet is awesome ... but startup time of the java vm is
painful compared to other user experiences
At a minimum, I'm glad to see the dead-ended XHTML 2 working group
officially killed; actual compatible implementations of ongoing work are
happening in the HTML 5 world and that's where the future definitely is.
I don't see much need for us to stick with the XML formulation for the
next
Michael Dale wrote:
I think if the playback system is java in ~any browser~ we should
~softly~ inform people to get a browser with native support if they
want a high quality video playback experience.
The cortado applet is awesome ... but startup time of the java vm is
painful compared
Also should be noted a simple patch for oggHandler to output video and
use the mv_embed library is in the works see:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18869
you can see it in action a few places like
http://metavid.org/wiki/File:FolgersCoffe_512kb.1496.ogv
Also note my ~soft~ push
2009/7/7 Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org:
Michael Dale wrote:
I think if the playback system is java in ~any browser~ we should
~softly~ inform people to get a browser with native support if they
want a high quality video playback experience.
The cortado applet is awesome ... but startup
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Michael Dalemd...@wikimedia.org wrote:
[snip]
I don't really have apple machine handy to test quality of user
experience in OSX safari with xiph-qt. But if that is on-par with
Firefox native support we should probably link to the component install
instructions
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:35 PM, William Allen
Simpsonwilliam.allen.simp...@gmail.com wrote:
Some may not think that this site is critical, or valuable, or whatever.
That's a horrible strawman argument. Some simply think that the
amount of damage that can be caused by hijacking a non-admin
20 matches
Mail list logo
