Allow me to be the voice of the small Web developer -- which I consider to be
the foundation of the World Wide Web.
In reference to:
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142to=1143
The recent removal of the mention of Ogg in HTML5 and the subsequent
replacement of its paragraph with
I'm sure that many people would be happy to see a mandate if someone
were willing to offer an indemnity against risk here. You seem quite
convinced there is no risk; are you willing to offer the indemnity?
Large companies (Nokia, Microsoft, and Apple) have expressed anxiety,
and are asking
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142to=1143
The recent removal of the mention of Ogg in HTML5 and the subsequent
replacement of its paragraph with the weasel-worded paragraph that would
make Minitrue bust their collective
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, Colin Lieberman wrote:
Matthew Raymond wrote:
I support the time element for the opposite reason, in fact. I don't
want to see authors styling the date format. I'd rather see the date
format localized or customized to a user preference. If the author
wants it in
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:03:17 +0100, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Matthew Raymond wrote:
A name element may have some uses, such as providing a hook for adding
people to your contact list:
| address
| nameJohn Hopkins/namebr
| Phone: (359) 555-1701
| /address
(Despite the subject line, this thread quickly veered way from Joe's blog
post and instead covered a variety of subjects. I have attempts to address
the points that had substance and may affect the spec in my replies below.
Please let me know if I missed something in this thread that you
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.
Maybe we could think about a general purpose element which allows
formating for
Ian Hickson schrieb:
The difference is that while Apple (for example) have already assumed the
risk of submarine patents with H.264, they currently have taken no risks
with respect to the aforementioned codecs, and they do not wish to take on
that risk.
Which surely means that they won't
On Dec 11, 2007 12:28 PM, Andy Mabbett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tag type=datetime format=/mm/dd HH:MMTue, 11 Dec 2007
10:57:14 GMT/tag
Neither of those encodes the date - specifically, the month - in a
machine-readable format. We cannot expect all UAs to know every language
variant and
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Maik Merten wrote:
Ian Hickson schrieb:
The difference is that while Apple (for example) have already assumed
the risk of submarine patents with H.264, they currently have taken no
risks with respect to the aforementioned codecs, and they do not wish
to take on
Ian Hickson schrieb:
One would imagine that they would happily take new risks if the rewards
were great (e.g. a better codec). Sadly the rewards in the case of Ogg
Theora are low -- there isn't much content using Theora, and Theora isn't
technically an especially compelling codec compared to
2007-12-11 05:56 Ian Hickson:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Christoph Paeper wrote:
Would the following be inadequate usage according to this
specification?
a href=foo.imgsampimg src=foo.t.img alt=...//samp/a
Yes. The former would be appropriate if a computer output the given
image
and that
2007-12-11 06:20 Ian Hickson:
I considered all the feedback on having a number 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.
JFTR:
Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 09:27 schrieb Manuel Amador (Rudd-O):
Hello,
Ian, revert. This compromise on basic values is unacceptable,
*whatever* the practical reasons you have deemed to compromise for. If
you don't revert, you will be giving us independent authors the shaft.
And we
Please, anybody, tell me it's not true.Ogg Vorbis/Theora is perfect for web
applications. We need to suport those. Is there anybody else than me that
realise it cost 0.75$ US to of patents licensing LEGALLY have an MP3 decoder? I
devellop for embedded applications, and it cost 15000$ Just to
hey
let me add my voice to this.
having the mention of ogg in the spec is *beneficial* to [wired] humanity. look
what open standards have gotten us [the flowering of culture and intelligence
on the web].
is this just another manifestation of our ooxml future ... ?
i hope not.
--
\js
Ian Hickson wrote:
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.
I don't think this solves any problem, neither in the short term or
the long term. I suggest that the should
After wasting what seemed like an eternity reading what can only be
described as pure and unabridged dribble from Nokia. Before I continue to
write this responce I would just like to thank Nokia for wasting 20mins of
my life.
I must express my disappointment that w3c is caving to pressure to
On 11 Dec 2007, at 15:33, Wilson Michaels wrote:
In reference to:
http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=1142to=1143
I am a retired software developer who is outraged that Ogg
technology has been removed from HTML5. It must be
reinstated as a should option so that the world is not
held
The difference with the should is that the browsers who support
standards will support ogg natively. The fact that big companies like
nokia etc don't actually use OGG is less my concern, it's more about the
free developers knowing that ogg will be supported at the users' end.
Patents is less
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote:
The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big players
don't want to take the perceived risk (their decision) they'd still be
100% within the spec.
Dnia 10-12-2007, Pn o godzinie 21:22 -0600, Dimitri Glazkov pisze:
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
Dnia 10-12-2007, Pn o godzinie 16:04 -0800, Dan Mosedale pisze:
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
You all have garnered quite the attention over removing Ogg
Vorbis/Theora as a recommended audio/video codec in HTML5. Just a
reminder: the rest of the Internet is watching, and is hoping with all
its heart that you do the Right Thing here.
On 11 Dec 2007, at 18:09, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
Fact: Vorbis is the *only* codec whose patent status has been widely
researched, nearly to exhaustion. Repeating the same FUD over and
over again
(which you just did) may lead the world to believe this to be false,
but it's
TRUE.
El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Dave Singer escribió:
I'm sure that many people would be happy to see a mandate if someone
were willing to offer an indemnity against risk here. You seem quite
convinced there is no risk; are you willing to offer the indemnity?
No. Unlike Apple, I don't have a huge
On 11 Dec 2007, at 16:20, alex wrote:
I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was
under the impression the standards were being designed in the same
opensource spirit, but I may have been wrong.
Standards are developed inline with the policies of the organisations
On Dec 11, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
I actually think this Slashdot comment summarizes the sentiment
perfectly:
Methinks you are being a bit myopic here. Where would we be today
if the HTML
spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the
image
No, I won't pay. It's not my problem, and they can foot the bill. If they
were wise, they would fund patent reform efforts as the most enduring way to
prevent these disasters from continually arising. But they won't because
they also benefit from the patent racket.
And even if Apple gets
On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
How does the globalStorage implementation deal with this problem? It
has a synchronous storage API. True it is probably designed for
smaller amounts of data, but there's nothing preventing an author from
using it for large amounts (is there?).
On Dec 11, 2007 11:22 AM, Aaron Boodman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or does
globalStorage not guarantee that data is written when the setter
returns?
A thing I've been thinking about for Gears would be the ability to
spin up an in-memory/async session database, with the sense of
session being the
On Dec 11, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
I thought it would be useful if the spec had a simple synchronous API
for cases where the developer expects operations to happen quickly
and/or doesn't care if they timeout ocassionally (because, for
example, the application will retry
2007/12/11, alex [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I am a webdeveloper and a fierce supporter of opensource. I was under
the impression the standards were being designed in the same opensource
spirit, but I may have been wrong. Setting OGG as the de facto standard
is the best idea i've heard in a long time,
Accept:
application/ogg,audio/ogg,video/ogg,audio/vorbis,video/theora,audio/speex
--
Fabien Meghazi
Website: http://www.amigrave.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Dec 2007, at 20:12, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
It was intended as meaning recognized in the sense of browsers
recognising them. No currently shipping browser recognises either Ogg
Vorbis or FLAC.
If I use EMBED on Konqueror pointing to an Ogg Vorbis file, I get a
nice
player with
Charles,
I find Opera's efforts commendable. More organizations should follow Opera's
lead in this direction, just as they've followed Opera's lead in several
other innovative efforts.
I trust your comment in favor of Ogg is not just because Opera already has
it (which, by the way, proves
It's clear that most people here feel passionately that this is the
wrong thing to do. Perhaps it's best that we table this until
something like workerpools are in the spec.
Worker pools do not resolve the problem, even if you were to force
any synchronous IO to be performed on a worker
On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:46 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
Apple and Nokia seem to think that there *are* hamburgers in the
moon, and
that those hamburgers will cost them billions of dollars in submarine
sandwich lawsuits.
Of course, that's what they are *saying*. It doesn't take a Feynman
On Tuesday 2007-12-11 02:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
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
I think you meant Vorbis, but other than a quick sed s/Theora/Vorbis/g, I see
myself agreeing with you.
El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Jeff McAdams escribió:
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Maik Merten wrote:
If keeping the web free of IP licensing horrors and being interoperable
with as
At 13:45 -0500 11/12/07, Fernando wrote:
Please reconsider the decision to exclude the recommendation of the
Theora/OGG Vorbis codec in HTML 5 guidelines.
This entire discussion is founded on a major misapprehension: that
there has been a decision, and that decision was to exclude. This is
The text you replaced the requirements with [1] includes the
requirement that the codec:
# is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies
Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a
loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the
choice of
At 19:04 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
At 13:45 -0500 11/12/07, Fernando wrote:
Please reconsider the decision to exclude the recommendation of the
Theora/OGG Vorbis codec in HTML 5 guidelines.
This entire discussion is founded on a major misapprehension:
David Hyatt wrote:
Fear of submarine patents is only one reason Apple is not interested in
Theora. There are several other reasons. H.264 is a technically
superior solution to Theora.
And absolutely noone has said that you can't use H.264. You are
perfectly free to do so. What is
At 13:20 -0500 11/12/07, John Lianoglou wrote:
Apologies to those that are, in fact, irritated by us Ogg-supporting
lobbiers; please understand that we are all simply motivated by our interest
in a vision to keep the Internet a free, vendor-neutral publishing
landscape, to the greatest degree
Dave Singer wrote:
At 19:04 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Dave Singer wrote:
At 13:45 -0500 11/12/07, Fernando wrote:
Please reconsider the decision to exclude the recommendation of the
Theora/OGG Vorbis codec in HTML 5 guidelines.
This entire discussion is founded on a major
Well, I admit you're at least somewhat right. On a totally unrelated but not
so unrelated matter, I'd like to see the efforts to form a single source tree
for KHTML/WebKit to march on faster.
(Then when George Staikos or another KDE guy implements Theora VIDEO you can
offer it for free to
At 23:20 +0100 11/12/07, alex wrote:
I have seen this argument pop up now and again, but I have failed to
actually find the URL to this, could someone post it please?
Hi. It was a record of a discussion at the HTML WG meeting, but
since I wrote it, I guess I can re-post it here (and it
Agreed. Let's just return the text, put a MUST in place of the SHOULD, and
continue the discussion. If you find your solution within one year, great,
s/Ogg/Yoursolution/g. If not, bite the bullet and go ahead.
El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Jeff McAdams escribió:
Dave Singer wrote:
At 19:04 -0500
Maybe you should listen to the meta-argument, then.
I'm sick and tired of getting screwed by big companies (including
Apple), and I will *not* quietly accept it.
That's not unreasonable, but you have yet to give a solid technical
reason for reverting to the old text,
so far your only
At 17:30 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Apple and Nokia's stated reasons for objecting to Theora are crap...
I can't speak for Nokia. But you are mis-characterizing Apple. We
have expressed concern, and suggested that perhaps someone who can be
seen to be independent, and is
This is an except from an MPEG-LA press release:
Owners of patents or patent applications determined by MPEG LA’s patent
experts to be essential to the H.264/AVC standard (“standard”) include
Columbia University, Electronics and Telecommunications Research
Institute of Korea (ETRI), France
Dave Singer wrote:
At 17:30 -0500 11/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote:
Apple and Nokia's stated reasons for objecting to Theora are crap...
I can't speak for Nokia. But you are mis-characterizing Apple. We have
expressed concern, and suggested that perhaps someone who can be seen to
be
That's not unreasonable, but you have yet to give a solid technical
reason for reverting to the old text,
Reasons to put the Ogg tech suite back on the spec:
- it's Free (who here hates beer or freedom?)
- it's patent-unencumbered (this is a FACT)
- it's technically very good (Theora) or even
On Dec 11, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:11:57 +0100, Geoffrey Sneddon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote:
The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big
players don't want to take the perceived
At 20:21 -0500 11/12/07, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Dave Singer escribió:
At 13:09 -0500 11/12/07, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
Fact: Vorbis is the *only* codec whose patent status has been widely
researched, nearly to exhaustion.
You are clearly completely
On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:02 PM, Oliver Hunt wrote:
It's clear that most people here feel passionately that this is the
wrong thing to do. Perhaps it's best that we table this until
something like workerpools are in the spec.
Worker pools do not resolve the problem, even if you were to force
On Dec 11, 2007, at 3:27 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
On Tuesday 2007-12-11 02:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
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
Le 12 déc. 2007 à 03:21, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) a écrit :
Where would we be today if the HTML
spec didn't specify jpg, gif, and png as baseline standards for the
image
tag?
FWIW, in fact the HTML 4.01 spec did NOT mandate any image formats.
I've tried to pick a representative sample of the e-mails sent since my
last e-mail. The ones I didn't reply to have been saved to the outstanding
video codec feedback folder, and I'll reply to them once we have a real
solution to the problem of finding a common codec.
For what it's worth the changes to persistent storage have my vote. As a
web author and user it strikes the right balance between functionality
and privacy. Just one thing though, since this storage could also be
used for 'offline applications' should some mention be made regarding
access from
At 2:19 + 12/12/07, Ian Hickson wrote:
I would much rather Apple not implement HTML5 at all, so I can call
Apple out on it in the marketplace, than to let an encumbered technology
be ensconced in a standard like HTML5.
I entirely agree that it would be unacceptable for HTML5 to
On Dec 11, 2007 4:46 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apple and Nokia seem to think that there *are* hamburgers in the moon, and
that those hamburgers will cost them billions of dollars in submarine
sandwich lawsuits.
Yes, it seems that way. Or, at least, the edits to the
On 12/12/2007, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think there are some objective criteria that can help determine the
scope of risk:
1) Is the codec already in use by deep-pockets vendors?
...
Vorbis:
1) maybe (I've heard game vendors cited, not sure which ones)
Microsoft
On Dec 11, 2007 6:51 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SHOULD is toothless.
Spefications aren't laws. MUSTs are toothless as well.
It carries absolutely no weight. I don't think
it's appropriate for such weak language to be in the HTML5 spec. It
should either be a MUST (which is
On Dec 11, 2007 6:26 PM, Jeff McAdams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would much rather Apple not implement HTML5 at all, so I can call
Apple out on it in the marketplace, than to let an encumbered technology
be ensconced in a standard like HTML5.
You know, I've been looking at the current HTML5
On 12/11/07, L. David Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies
Is this something that can be measured objectively, or is it a
loophole that allows any sufficiently large company to veto the
choice of codec for any reason it chooses,
On Dec 11, 2007 5:30 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole point of the change was to make the point that we need something
that will not screw you. Ogg isn't a solution, as it won't be implemented
by Apple and Microsoft. If we require Ogg, then what will happen is the
big players will
On Dec 11, 2007 7:47 PM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sure there are many other questions...
One question might concern the value in standardizing a shell API for
proprietary codecs. If there are no freely implementable solutions,
maybe the spec should drop it.
Personally, I think
That sounds too accusatory to me. I'd be surprised to find malice,
immorality, or profiteering at the root. I do think the recent changes
to the document are supported by weak pseudo-legal doubletalk from
engineers afraid to get in trouble.
Don't expect good quality specifications from such
El Mié 12 Dic 2007, Robert Sayre escribió:
On Dec 11, 2007 6:51 PM, David Hyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SHOULD is toothless.
Spefications aren't laws. MUSTs are toothless as well.
It carries absolutely no weight. I don't think
it's appropriate for such weak language to be in the HTML5
I'd rephrase it as
# Has had traction, time and exposure in the market, enough so patent threats
should have arisen already.
Which is basically the same meaning, and includes Ogg Vorbis technology.
Because if America Online (Winamp) is not a big company, then I don't know
the meaning of the
On Dec 11, 2007 8:31 PM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is an oxymoron. Ogg is NOT a standard; it
is an open-source effort. H.264 (for example) is
NOT proprietary, but a multi-vendor-developed
international standard.
A multi-vendor effort does not make the codec
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, bofh wrote:
The whole point of the change was to make the point that we need
something that will not screw you. Ogg isn't a solution, as it won't
be implemented by Apple and Microsoft. If we require Ogg, then what
will happen is the big players will support
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Christoph P�per wrote:
The second to last example should probably better read:
varE/var = varm/var � varcvarsup2/sup
or maybe, as the speed of light is a constant,
varE/var = varm/var � csup2/sup.
If you are suggesting adding the multiplication sign, I disagree;
On Dec 12, 2007 11:38 AM, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Possible action:
The members of the WG are engineers, not IPR experts. There is
general consensus that a solution is desirable, but also that
engineers are not well placed to find it:
a) they are not experts in the IPR and
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, L. David Baron wrote:
In this case, most implementors following the SHOULD and implementing
Theora might help companies whose concern is submarine patents become
more comfortable about shipping Theora, especially if some of the
implementors are companies similar in
77 matches
Mail list logo
