RE: [backstage] Mail archives
I agree but there was no clear idea what we should do except maybe move the whole thing to Mailman? Because the list is public, I guess there is nothing stopping it being archived in multiple places if you know anywhere better? Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 22 January 2010 18:20 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Mail archives Hi all, I know things are due to change on this list at *some* point (presumably post-move!), but this has been bugging me for a while :) I might be the only one, but I find mail-archive.com to be… suboptimal, it's quite often incredibly slow (sometimes to the point of being unusable). So, I was wondering if there'd be any objections to submitting the backstage list to gmane.org? Given it's a fairly public list with public archives, I can’t think of any reasons to _not_ do it, but thought it polite to solicit opinions form other members before jumping in with both feet! M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Mail archives
Mo McRoberts wrote: Hi all, I know things are due to change on this list at *some* point (presumably post-move!), but this has been bugging me for a while :) I might be the only one, but I find mail-archive.com to be… suboptimal, it's quite often incredibly slow (sometimes to the point of being unusable). So, I was wondering if there'd be any objections to submitting the backstage list to gmane.org? Given it's a fairly public list with public archives, I can’t think of any reasons to _not_ do it, but thought it polite to solicit opinions form other members before jumping in with both feet! gmane sounds good to me. Perhaps possibly also do nabble? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] New Backstage Blog
Just in case you missed it, Last week was the 5th unofficial Anniversary of Backstage.bbc.co.uk. I say unofficial because it was officially launched in May at OpenTech05 but quite a few people were given access to the news/sports feeds ahead of time. To go with the Anniversary, we have launched our new blog - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/ alongside a new landing page for backstage.bbc.co.uk. As mentioned in the top current blog post, not everything is quite done yet. For example there is lots of links which go to different locations. We'll be working on these soon. I'm also expecting to upload RDTV ep3 (the long version) up this week which I think you'll all get a kick out of. Cheers, Secret[] Private[] Public] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Mail archives
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I agree but there was no clear idea what we should do except maybe move the whole thing to Mailman? Because the list is public, I guess there is nothing stopping it being archived in multiple places if you know anywhere better? Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Better archives would be great! but should the archiver software refuse to publish anything with a .sig file marked 'Private[x]' ? cheers, Dan - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Come join us in Salford Quays - BBC Job
http://jobs.bbc.co.uk/fe/tpl_bbc01.asp?newms=jjid=31390aid=10281 We're looking for talented developers to join the North Lab ahead of the move to Salford. Hopefully I'll be working closer with some of you in the near future. Cheers, Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Mail archives
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I agree but there was no clear idea what we should do except maybe move the whole thing to Mailman? Because the list is public, I guess there is nothing stopping it being archived in multiple places if you know anywhere better? Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Better archives would be great! but should the archiver software refuse to publish anything with a .sig file marked 'Private[x]' ? and if i try to access one marked 'Secret[x]' do i run the risk of arrest? cheers, Dan winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] Mail archives
Well if its you Michael, certainly :) Arrest him now. Secret[x] Private[x] Public[x] ;) Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Michael Smethurst Sent: 25 January 2010 13:30 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Mail archives On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I agree but there was no clear idea what we should do except maybe move the whole thing to Mailman? Because the list is public, I guess there is nothing stopping it being archived in multiple places if you know anywhere better? Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Better archives would be great! but should the archiver software refuse to publish anything with a .sig file marked 'Private[x]' ? and if i try to access one marked 'Secret[x]' do i run the risk of arrest? cheers, Dan - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Mail archives
Semantically talking maybe yes :) Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Dan Brickley Sent: 25 January 2010 13:09 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Mail archives On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I agree but there was no clear idea what we should do except maybe move the whole thing to Mailman? Because the list is public, I guess there is nothing stopping it being archived in multiple places if you know anywhere better? Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Better archives would be great! but should the archiver software refuse to publish anything with a .sig file marked 'Private[x]' ? cheers, Dan - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Mail archives
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:43, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I agree but there was no clear idea what we should do except maybe move the whole thing to Mailman? There was a consensus for Mailman, although I don't think anybody hates Majordomo enough to stamp feet over it! Because the list is public, I guess there is nothing stopping it being archived in multiple places if you know anywhere better? I'll submit to gmane, which means I can start accessing the list via NNTP (hurrah) - I guess others should feel free to submit to other places if they think it's worthwhile? More low-level exposure for backstage amongst the sorts of places developers hang out is probably a good thing :) M. Secret[] Private[x] Public[] ^^ I doubt any archival system will pay much attention to this, though :D M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Mail archives
I'll submit to gmane, which means I can start accessing the list via NNTP (hurrah) - I guess others should feel free to submit to other places if they think it's worthwhile? --- Sure as long as there's not too much cross posting. Backstage should stay on topic :) More low-level exposure for backstage amongst the sorts of places developers hang out is probably a good thing :) --- Agreed, but its quite a noisy mailing list right now, so I'd rather people come because they want to rather than it being forced upon them. Secret[] Private[x] Public[] ^^ I doubt any archival system will pay much attention to this, though :D --- Oh I know, I just wish I could have a rule that when I'm emailing the list, it would automatically change it to public, as I forget sometimes :) I'm not flawless :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Hummm what's this I spy here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/2010/01/freeview-hd-content-management.shtml Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 23 January 2010 17:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people are such idealists?
Somewhat related to the discussion already going on? http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/jan/25/firefox-open-video-support Idealists or pioneers? Interesting block at the bottom, Web video has never really been open, unencumbered and free. We've had Real Networks RM format, Apple's QuickTime, Microsoft's Windows Media Video (now standardised as VC-1), the DivX and XviD codecs, and Adobe Flash among others. There might never be one open standard, simply because some content owners will want to include DRM (Digital Rights Management) copy restrictions. However, the web would benefit from having an open, unencumbered and free video format that enabled HTML programmers to include a video as easily as they now include a headline or a photo, wouldn't it? How do we get to that? Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Given it a go, going to Tweet it and things. 2010/1/25 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Hummm what's this I spy here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/2010/01/freeview-hd-content-management.shtml Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 23 January 2010 17:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
RE: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
Good thinking :) So not use to tweeting my blog entries and MT doesn't have that support in the version we use on blogs.bbc.co.uk Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 25 January 2010 16:58 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Given it a go, going to Tweet it and things. 2010/1/25 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Hummm what's this I spy here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/2010/01/freeview-hd-content-management.shtml Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 23 January 2010 17:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people are such idealists?
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 16:57, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Web video has never really been open, unencumbered and free. We've had Real Networks RM format, Apple's QuickTime, Microsoft's Windows Media Video (now standardised as VC-1), the DivX and XviD codecs, and Adobe Flash among others. There might never be one open standard, simply because some content owners will want to include DRM (Digital Rights Management) copy restrictions. However, the web would benefit from having an open, unencumbered and free video format that enabled HTML programmers to include a video as easily as they now include a headline or a photo, wouldn't it? How do we get to that? Not the way Mozilla is going about it, that's for sure - they're trying to solve all of the problems at once, but without any support from the people who _need_ to support this stuff in order for it to be effective. Without the likes of Microsoft and Apple getting behind Theora and giving it a clean bill of health, patent-wise (and in Apple's case, making use of silicon which decodes it), it's going to go nowhere fast and people will abandon Firefox for Chrome if they want video. The way I suspect this will, eventually, play out is that under pressure from stakeholders, software *decoders* for H.264 will become exempted from the patent regime by the MPEG-LA. This still leaves the thorny issue of encoders and the sites streaming the content, but that's far less of an issue for the end-user, and another battle for another day. Dirac, as lovely as it is, doesn't have the traction, and doesn't (in its current form) seem to be too well-suited to the vast range of applications that H.264 is used for. In the meantime, though, Firefox is going to get left behind. Some sites will go to the trouble of transcoding to Theora, but mostly they'll just run with H.264 + Flash or QuickTime fallback (which works pretty well in my testing, if done carefully). M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] BarCampBankLondon 3
And the 2nd one Some of you might be interested in BarCampBankLondon3 taking place at PayPal's Richmond office on January 30th. The aim of BarCampBank is to foster innovation and the creation of new business models in the world of finance. BarCampBankLondon has been attended by many (prob. most) of London's financial startups. It is organised by Dave Birch of Consult Hyperion. (They're currently working on the new TfL payment systems.) At a BarCamp, you just turn up, suggest or pick sessions that interest you, and get started. Everyone should aim bring a technology, some know-how or just an opinion to share. It's an informal conference - there are no sales pitches. (Well, other than PayPal, but it's their office!) Previous topics have included: * Writing a free portfolio risk management system * Causes of and grass roots solutions to the credit crunch * Development of p2p lending and microfinance * Credit Clearing, and the use of a Value Standard * Mobile Biometric Payments Here's a meetup link: http://www.meetup.com/BarCampBankLondon3/calendar/12136736/
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
I use Hootsuite to publish from my RSS feeds. It works even if you don't log in. http://hootsuite.com/ 2010/1/25 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Good thinking :) So not use to tweeting my blog entries and MT doesn't have that support in the version we use on blogs.bbc.co.uk Secret[] Private[x] Public[] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -- *From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth *Sent:* 25 January 2010 16:58 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Given it a go, going to Tweet it and things. 2010/1/25 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk Hummm what's this I spy here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcbackstage/2010/01/freeview-hd-content-management.shtml Secret[] Private[] Public[x] Ian Forrester Senior Backstage Producer BBC RD North Lab, 1st Floor Office, OB Base, New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road, Manchester, M60 1SJ -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Frank Wales Sent: 23 January 2010 17:54 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management Mo McRoberts wrote: It’s almost as though Ofcom (and the BBC, and distributors) believe the illicit file-sharing is bound by geographical restrictions, though that’s so crazy it can’t possibly be true… Are you suggesting that these organizations don't fully understand the media landscape they're presiding over? Why, that's...inconceivable! -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people are such idealists?
Web video has never really been open, unencumbered and free. We've had Real Networks RM format, Apple's QuickTime, Microsoft's Windows Media Video (now standardised as VC-1), the DivX and XviD codecs, and Adobe Flash among others. There might never be one open standard, simply because some content owners will want to include DRM (Digital Rights Management) copy restrictions. DRM isn't the issue for proprietary formats in my opinion since that's generally a container-level issue as opposed to a codec level issue. (MKV had support for DRM and there are various incarnations for .mp4. You could also say Flash RTMP is an (albeit large) extension of .flv) Because of the way video codec standardisation works and flaws in the software patent system all video codecs have features which are patented. In spite of what Xiph/Mozilla might say Theora almost certainly has patented features; nobody has done an exhaustive search because of the cost in time and money. However, the web would benefit from having an open, unencumbered and free video format that enabled HTML programmers to include a video as easily as they now include a headline or a photo, wouldn't it? How do we get to that? Reform of the patent system. open, unencumbered, free etc. is just Xiph/Mozilla propaganda. Not the way Mozilla is going about it, that's for sure - they're trying to solve all of the problems at once, but without any support from the people who _need_ to support this stuff in order for it to be effective. Without the likes of Microsoft and Apple getting behind Theora and giving it a clean bill of health, patent-wise (and in Apple's case, making use of silicon which decodes it), it's going to go nowhere fast and people will abandon Firefox for Chrome if they want video. A clean bill of health is near-impossible because *trivial things* are patented in video compression. The silicon is already out there for H.264 in millions of devices so reinventing the wheel is silly. Perhaps Xiph/Mozilla stood a chance in 2003 but this is far too late. The way I suspect this will, eventually, play out is that under pressure from stakeholders, software *decoders* for H.264 will become exempted from the patent regime by the MPEG-LA. This still leaves the thorny issue of encoders and the sites streaming the content, but that's far less of an issue for the end-user, and another battle for another day. Open source H.264 isn't pursued by MPEG-LA anyway. The issue of encoders is fine, you just use x264 (which is the project I work on), which is the best H.264 encoder in the world in the majority of use-cases. Dirac, as lovely as it is, doesn't have the traction, and doesn't (in its current form) seem to be too well-suited to the vast range of applications that H.264 is used for. Wavelet video compression still isn't ready for prime-time so to speak. In the meantime, though, Firefox is going to get left behind. Some sites will go to the trouble of transcoding to Theora, but mostly they'll just run with H.264 + Flash or QuickTime fallback (which works pretty well in my testing, if done carefully). Now that Flash 10.1 has hardware acceleration anyone requiring content security will still use Flash. Quicktime is the only decoder which manages to be worse than Flash in terms of features and performance. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people are such idealists?
In the meantime, though, Firefox is going to get left behind. Some sites will go to the trouble of transcoding to Theora, but mostly they'll just run with H.264 + Flash or QuickTime fallback (which works pretty well in my testing, if done carefully). Surely tho some clever person will write a plugin for Firefox to enable the H.264 codec, assuming they can get a version that will plugin/addon nicely I'd be more than happy to direct users to a site to download said plugin if and when I get around to adding HTML5 Video to my project site (have they finished the HTML 5 Spec yet?) -- Barry Carlyon Located Between Al-Jazeera and BBC Radio 1 SRA Chart Officer Webmaster: http://LSRfm.com - Leeds Student Radio http://barrycarlyon.co.uk mobile: 07729 048 443 office: 0113 380 1281 skype: barrycarlyon email: ba...@barrycarlyon.co.uk msn: ba...@barrycarlyon.co.uk
Re: [backstage] Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people are such idealists?
On 25-Jan-2010, at 18:59, Barry Carlyon wrote: Surely tho some clever person will write a plugin for Firefox to enable the H.264 codec, assuming they can get a version that will plugin/addon nicely As far as I know, FF provides no plugin interface for video and audio codecs. It’s been suggested, numerous times, mostly in the context of… I'd be more than happy to direct users to a site to download said plugin if and when I get around to adding HTML5 Video to my project site (have they finished the HTML 5 Spec yet?) Short answer: “mostly” Long answer, it doesn’t matter: it could be finished, locked, done, never-changing and be completely irrelevant, or it could be in a state of comparative flux but be well-supported enough that it’s a big deal. I think it sits somewhere between the two: just as with CSS3, you need to know what support is out there and how to degrade gracefully, and browsers don’t really implement stuff (at a basic level) which is subject to heavy amounts of change without explicitly making it clear that it’s incompatible (like with -webkit-border-radius and -moz-border-radius vs. border-radius in CSS). There are things that implementations certainly need to shore up, especially in the brand new things like video and audio, but this may well come about by consensus and end up in HTML 5.1 rather than anything else. There’s a lot of good stuff in HTML5, though, even aside from the contentious bits, and some of it is quite well-suported already. I’m a big fan of the HTML5 form elements, for example. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
