Bjoern Hoehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is hard to find tools that take care of transcoding, they are
difficult to use (lack of advise on which settings to use, crude command
line interfaces, ...)
Most such applications start as console applications, that changes as
soon as more mainstream
On 3/16/07, Dean Edridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the idea of having an attribute for the aspect ratio of a video
is a great idea, especially given the fact that web sites today should
be as fluid / liquid as possible since there is a need to cater for a
range of different screen sizes.
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
We're not enforcing this upon the world ;-)
Speaking about enforcing. When this element gets implemented there are a
few things I would demand from my browser:
1. That videos should never start to play without my consent. No more
bgsound-hellish experiences.
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:56:53 +0100, Shadow2531 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For example, every video page on a site might have a 400 x 400 video
element (to fit with the layout for example), but the video that plays
in it will range in size and aspect ratio.
A way to solve that so the layout of
On 3/17/07, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 11:56:53 +0100, Shadow2531 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For example, every video page on a site might have a 400 x 400 video
element (to fit with the layout for example), but the video that plays
in it will range in size
Bjoern Hoehrmann schrieb:
Flash supports two codecs, the more recent one is VP6, a successor of
VP3; VP3 in turn is what Ogg Theora is based on. I would be surprised
to learn that On2 gave the superior codec away for free while it sells
the inferior one.
On2 VP6 is performing better than On2
Laurens Holst wrote:
So make the object mime type optional, only indicative. It will receive
it from the server anyway.
The problem with dropping the MIME type is that files on the Internet
don't require extensions. They already have MIME types. Therefore, as a
web author looking at someone
I don't see the problem with this.
Object is a tag to represent just about anything, even text/html
renders in an object.
Can you identify a use case where you *need* to know before you get a
content-type header?
Gaz
On 17 Mar 2007, at 15:17, Matthew Raymond wrote:
Laurens Holst wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:49:04 -, Bjoern Hoehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
++-+-+---+
| SMIL | SVG | IE | WHATWG |
Gareth Hay wrote:
I don't see the problem with this.
Object is a tag to represent just about anything, even text/html
renders in an object.
Can you identify a use case where you *need* to know before you get a
content-type header?
Sure. What happens if you're taking old videos of a
Matthew Raymond wrote:
Sure. What happens if you're taking old videos of a page because you
moved them to a site like YouTube? How would you tell them apart from
other content in the page that might require object, like SVG graphics
and such?
With HEAD requests? A personal spidering tool
In theory, standardized file extensions or type attributes allows
non-supporting browsers to not issue a request for the content, if they
could trust producers to correctly label content
Or at least it would, if user agents could trust producers to correctly
label their content. But even if
Current browsers do treat object differently based on type. For
example, if an object has a type attribute in the set
application/foobar or video/foobar or audio/foobar or
foobar/foobar ELinks stable will stick a link to it above its
rendition of the fallback content. With no type attribute or
On 16 Mar 2007, at 23:58, Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
Also sprach Robert Brodrecht:
I'd rather make video and audio optional so that those who
cannot
support these Ogg on these elements (for whatever reason) can still
comply with the spec. They can also support proprietary codecs
through
Also sprach Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis:
Sure. What happens if you're taking old videos of a page because you
moved them to a site like YouTube? How would you tell them apart from
other content in the page that might require object, like SVG graphics
and such?
With HEAD requests? A
Also sprach Geoffrey Sneddon:
Yes. If a vendor, for some reason, is unable to support the Ogg
codecs, I think it's better that they (a) do not support video, than
(b) they support video with proprietary codecs only.
Interoperability has more value than conformace.
I think
According to the draft for object there is no requirement to specify
the mime type in object tag anyway, so I'm guessing some people will
never specify it.
f the file fails to load, you don't have a
MIME type at all, so what kind of presentation would a broken video
have
on the page if
Håkon Wium Lie wrote:
On a mobile phone, it's expensive and slow to perform HEAD requests.
I can well believe that, but the question becomes: are the types
reported in the type attribute sufficiently reliable for mobile phone
purposes? i.e. can phone browsers safely ignore embedded content if
I'm refereeing at the Silicon Valley regionals of the FIRST Robotics
Challenge, so I'm not able to respond to the thread and fix the spec
appropriately yet (though I'll get right on that next week), but I just
wanted to correct a minor error in this mail:
On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Original Message -
From: Sander Tekelenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] require img dimensions to be correct?
| At 03:46 +1300 UTC, on 2007-03-17, Dean Edridge wrote:
|
| The chance of someone not being able
Hi,
I think the audio and video APIs should be mostly identical because
that would make them easier for authors to learn both.
Presently, the APIs have the following:
video | Audio()
src| new Audio(file);
videoWidth |
videoHeight|
length
On 3/5/07, Håkon Wium Lie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also sprach Elliotte Harold:
If we add a video element, should we for the same reasons add an audio
element?
Yes.
I agree. I was thinking about what Christoph Päper said, in video
element proposal:
On 3/17/07, Christoph Päper [EMAIL
Also sprach Maik Merten:
I can't comment on how Theora compares to VP6, but I'm pretty sure
Theora outperforms H.263 which is said to be used at Google Video or
YouTube for compatibility reasons.
Thank you for an informative message on video decoders.
In the context of codecs, the term
23 matches
Mail list logo
