On 11/12/2007, James Justin Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've heard several times that Ogg is hard coded to only work with certain
> types of codecs, and
> thus can't work with new codecs without being updated first. Is that also
> incorrect?
Yes, that is also incorrect. The Ogg contai
Le 11 déc. 2007 à 13:52, Ian Hickson a écrit :
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Ryan King wrote:
Would http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-license be helpful here?
Not really, as far as I can tell; it seems class=copyright is used on
explicit copyright statements, not links to copyright licenses.
See for
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Michel Fortin wrote:
>
> That's a personal opinion, but I think it may have some value.
>
> I find the proposed and elements to lack expressiveness in their
> names. I understand that making them shorter is desirable, but it also
> has a drawback: they're harder to underst
I considered all the feedback on having a element (or similar),
quoted below.
While I think there is certainly something to be said for the proposal, I
don't think there is enough evidence that authors really want or need
this. I think we should focus on having CSS support this first.
Thank
At 4:02 + 11/12/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 10:54 PM, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The w3c staff are, I believe, looking into this whole
area, particularly with respect to IPR and licensing. The engineers,
should, of course, work out what is best from a fu
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Christoph Paeper wrote:
>
> 2.9.16. The |samp| element
>
> Would the following be inadequate usage according to this specification?
>
>
>
> instead of
>
>
>
> for thumbnail (i.e. preview) images.
Yes. The former would be appropriate if a computer output the given im
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Billy Wong wrote:
> >
> > * It should be possible to have a group of pages that have a similar
> >structure, with elements annotated as necessary. For example, a menu
> >list could be the same on each page, but with the currently loaded
> >page simply not having th
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
> At 22:08 + UTC, on 2006-03-09, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > * It should be possible for scripts to add content to placeholder
> >elements without those placeholder elements being non-conformant.
> >This is a very useful programming idiom,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Ryan King wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> >
> > Google recently published some (not-very-scientific) research which
> > people on this list will probably find interesting:
> >
> >http://code.google.com/webstats/index.html
> >
> > I plan to us
--- Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Those are fairly big words by someone who seems to have no idea what
> they're talking about.
I was just going by the story I've heard. If it's not true, I apologize for
spreading
misinformation.
> Ogg is highly
> scalable and able to contai
On Dec 10, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Dimitri Glazkov wrote:
Guys, I think the point was that it's not unreasonable to have
synchronous API. The argument about slow/busy devices is valid, but I
still think the developer should have the choice of either going with
a simple query/receive calls in their c
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Samuel Sidler wrote:
>
> From reading the current HTML5 spec, it seems like there is a need for a
> new tag designed specifically for indicating selection of UI elements.
> For purposes of this email, I'm going to call it (for lack of a
> decent name at the moment).
>
> Cu
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, dolphinling wrote:
>
> I would like it if the section on sub and sup included text along these lines:
>
> | The semantics of sub and sup are weaker than those of elements in
> | some other languages, e.g. MathML's msup. Authors should when possible
> | use those other language
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, fantasai wrote:
>
> Why do and allow structured inline content while
> only allows strictly inline content?
Because you can pass a computer a structured list as code, and a computer
can output a list, but there is no key that comprises a list.
--
Ian Hickson
On Dec 10, 2007 10:54 PM, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The w3c staff are, I believe, looking into this whole
> area, particularly with respect to IPR and licensing. The engineers,
> should, of course, work out what is best from a functionality point
> of view, but the position is heavi
On Dec 10, 2007 2:38 PM, Oliver Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/12/2007, at 12:21 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
> >> If we cannot provide this, I feel that localstorage will not be
> >> successful, so it won't matter what API it uses.
> >
> > I think this is a pretty extreme conclusion. My im
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
instead and then reply
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> One thing I'd like to see is some reconciliation between the SQL API and
> the Storage interface. These are two completely separate storage
> mechanisms with different security policies, different access APIs (SQL
> queries vs. simple key/value p
I just checked in a change to make globalStorage far simpler -- I dropped
all the domain manipulation stuff, and made it same-origin instead. I also
dropped StorageItem and just made the Storage stuff return strings.
For more complex operations, we now have the SQL database APIs.
This makes a
On 11/12/2007, Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Both of these psuedo-"l33t" format choices appear to be used primarily for
> packagers of a tiny percentage of illegally-distributed media. But even
> there, their use seems to be declining.
On the other hand, Ogg Theora is very well-supported
On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
I'd hate for GMail to mysteriously stop working every couple of
days just because of some background process that I had no
knowledge of. As a developer, how would you debug such a problem?
As a tech support worker, how would you explain it
At 12:27 -0800 10/12/07, Charles wrote:
>> This is probably going to cause some emotional responses, but I
feel like I need to say this now.
This argument has met with rational responses in previous threads.
If you're interested in the origin of the current language, please
review those
On Dec 10, 2007, at 12:21 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
I still feel that there are many simple use cases for a local
database
for which a developer can assume the read and write latency should
always be less than five seconds.
Even the fastest desktop hard drives can show greater than 5 second
On 10/12/2007, at 12:21 PM, Geoffrey Garen wrote:
If we cannot provide this, I feel that localstorage will not be
successful, so it won't matter what API it uses.
I think this is a pretty extreme conclusion. My impression is that web
developers want local storage so badly, they'll use whateve
>> This is probably going to cause some emotional responses, but I
>> feel like I need to say this now.
>
> This argument has met with rational responses in previous threads.
> If you're interested in the origin of the current language, please
> review those earlier discussions.
I'll try to find t
Getting back to storage, consider devices with a Flash drive as the
primary disk. Most web developers won't test on these (did you?), but
they have very different performance characteristics than hard
drives.
While there are no seek latencies to content with, and reads can be
pretty fast, the w
On 12/10/07, James Justin Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matroska is produced by an effort focused solely on producing a container
> format, while Xiph was
> more concerned with the codecs. Ogg's purpose was to contain Theora and
> Vorbis, quickly, while
> Matroska is a powerful general-purpo
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:54:11AM -0800, Charles wrote:
> This is probably going to cause some emotional responses, but I feel like I
> need to say this now.
This argument has met with rational responses in previous threads. If
you're interested in the origin of the current language, please rev
Hello,
This is probably going to cause some emotional responses, but I feel like I
need to say this now.
>> I also feel the choice here of the Ogg container format is a bad one, and
that Matroska would be a much better choice.
>
> I agree about this. Matroska is built upon EBML...
I do developme
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 09:14:39AM -0800, James Justin Harrell wrote:
> The language could be improved. "Ogg Theora" refers to Theora-encoded video
> enclosed in an Ogg
> container, not the Theora codec. Similar for Vorbis. "Theora" and "Vorbis"
> should be used without
> "Ogg" to refer to the a
> I also feel the choice here of the Ogg container format is a bad one, and
> that Matroska would be a
> much better choice.
I agree about this. Matroska is built upon EBML, meaning that it is
the best choice for a container that should evolve through time while
keeping backward compatibility. Co
Section 3.14.7.1, "Video and audio codecs for video elements", currently says
this:
"User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as well as
the Ogg container
format. [THEORA] [VORBIS] [OGG]"
The language could be improved. "Ogg Theora" refers to Theora-encoded video
enclo
32 matches
Mail list logo
