Re: [whatwg] H.264-in-video vs plugin APIs

[Maik Merten]

Hi Chris,

I provide an additional comparison at
http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/ using different content.
This doesn't qualify as more movement/action (it's hard to get free HD
samples of such content in good quality), but content like the one I
used is common nonetheless on community video streaming platforms.

bye,

Maik

Chris DiBona wrote:
 Hi greg;
 
 I'll pass this on, it's a good post. Have you considered other kinds
 of video tests as well? (something cell shaded, more movement/action,
 etc...) as it stands, it's useful, with more examples, it might be
 more convincing as an argument for Theora.
 
 Chris
 
 On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
 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 sure what mixture of misinformation and hyperbole inspired
 this remark, but I believe that it is misleading and to leave it stand
 without comment would be a disservice to this working group.

 I have prepared a detailed response:
 http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html


 I understand that the selection and implementation of video,
 especially at the scale of YouTube, is worlds apart from such a
 simplistic comparison. But you didn't claim that Theora support would
 be inconvenient, that it would require yet-unjustified expenditure, or
 that the total cost would simply be somewhat higher than the H.264
 solution. You basically claimed that Theora on YouTube would destroy
 the internet.  I'd consider that too silly to respond to if I didn't
 know that many would take it as the literal truth.

 Even though I wish Google were doing more to promote open video, I
 appreciate all that it has done so far.  I hope that I'll soon be able
 to add a retraction or amendment of that claim to the list.


 Cheers,
 Greg Maxwell

 
 
 

[whatwg] Storage Events for a Specific Storage Area

[Joseph Pecoraro]

The storage event [1] fires for both sessionStorage and  
localStorage.  To me, this means if you only want to interact with  
localStorage you will have to manually ensure that it is the storage  
area being modified:


  window.addEventListener('storage', function(e) {
if ( e.storageArea === localStorage ) {
  // ...
}
  }

Was there any discussion about creating events specific to the storage  
object, or should that already be possible?  I've been playing around  
with WebKit's Storage implementation, and the following  
(understandably) is not possible:


   localStorage.addEventListener
  undefined

Is there any way to listen to events for a single specific storage  
area or is the previously mentioned approach preferred?


Cheers,
Joe

[1]: http://dev.w3.org/html5/webstorage/#the-storage-event

Re: [whatwg] html5 state handling: overview and extensions

[Michael Nordman]

This breakdown is a useful way to think about application state in the
browser. Another axis that could be incorporated into the model is lifetime.
There is some overlap between Server-Controlled and Script-Controlled realms
in cookies, applications definitely have a dependency on that overlap being
there. There are two constructs not represented in your writeup, Database
and ApplicationCache.
 Possible solutions would be to add a new documentStorage to
 WebStorage, or to offer a History.setDocumentState method.

I see other possibilities with WebStorage too.
  documentStorage has persistent lifetime + document scope
others...
  transient lifetime + document scope  (transient does not survive a browser
restart)
  transient lifetime + user agent scopetemporaryStorage
  transient lifetime + history entry scope   privateStorage