On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:03 PM, wrote:
>
> I propose that a MPEG-1 subset should be considered as the required
> codec for the HTML-5 video tag.
>
> == MPEG-1 Background ==
<...>
> == Brief comparison to other video codecs ==
>
<...>
> Ogg Theora and Ogg Vorbis are newer standards than MPEG
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Singer wrote:
>> At 14:09 +1000 9/05/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> Of course none of the
>>> discussion will inherently disallow seeking - scripts will always be
>>
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM, David Singer wrote:
> At 23:46 +1000 8/05/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:43 AM, David Singer wrote:
>>>
>>> At 8:45 +1000 8/05/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:43 AM, David Singer wrote:
> At 8:45 +1000 8/05/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:04 AM, David Singer wrote:
>>>
>>> At 8:39 +0200 5/05/09, KÞi"tof Îelechovski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:04 AM, David Singer wrote:
> At 8:39 +0200 5/05/09, KÞi”tof Îelechovski wrote:
>>
>> If the author wants to show only a sample of a resource and not the full
>> resource, I think she does it on purpose. It is not clear why it is vital
>> for the viewer to have an _obviou
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:25 AM, David Singer wrote:
> At 23:15 +1000 30/04/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>> >>
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:00 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, David Singer wrote:
>> At 16:45 + 30/04/09, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, David Singer wrote:
>> > >
>> > > If the resource is 'seekable' then time is relevant, and I agree
>> > > that time should be a no
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Note that in the Media Fragment working group even the specification
>> >> of http://www.example.com/t.mov#time="10s-20s"; ma
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> Note that in the Media Fragment working group even the specification of
>> http://www.example.com/t.mov#time="10s-20s"; may mean that only the
>> requested 10s clip is delivered, especially if all the
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2009, David Singer wrote:
>> >
>> > Navigation outside the indicated range could be done in several ways -
>> > it does not have to be through indicating the full length of the
>> > resource in the timeline.
>>
>> surely. but whic
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>> > Note that in the Media Fragment working group even the specification
>> > of http://www.example.com/t.mov#time="10s-20s"; may mean tha
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> Note that in the Media Fragment working group even the specification
>> of http://www.example.com/t.mov#time="10s-20s"; may mean that only the
>> requested 10s clip is deliv
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:37 AM, David Singer wrote:
> At 8:29 +1000 8/04/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> > My mental analogy was HTML, where an acnhor takes you to that part of
>> the
>>>
>>> page as a convenience, but nothing stops you from naviga
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:21 AM, David Singer wrote:
> At 8:02 +1000 8/04/09, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> Note that in the Media Fragment working group even the specification
>> of http://www.example.com/t.mov#time="10s-20s"; may mean that only the
>> reques
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 3:30 AM, David Singer wrote:
> At 19:20 +0200 7/04/09, KÞi”tof Îelechovski wrote:
>>
>> OTOH, if the media player scroll bar has zoom function, the problem of
>> navigation deficiency in a short interval disappears. When the browser
>> displays a fragment, it can just zoom
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> wrote:
>
>> For example, take a video that is a subpart of a larger video and has
>> been delivered through a media fragment URI
>> (http://www.w3.org/2008/
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Apr 2009 06:11:51 +0200, Chris Double
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Eric Carlson
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Media time values are expressed in normal play time (NPT), the absolute
>>> position relative to the beginning
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Chris Double wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer
> wrote:
>> If we want to display that there
>> is some more context around the video, we should display the offset
>> time. I personally would prefer the latter
Hi Chris,
At the end of last year (I cannot find the thread any more) there was
a discussion about removing a start offset attribute from the video
element. The reason it was removed is that the W3C media fragments
working group is working on a specification that is similar to the
temporal URI spe
Hi Emil,
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Emil Tin wrote:
>
> i understand that SVG is meant for advanced timing etc.
Maybe rather SMIL - that's where SVG got it from.
> but it would be very useful to have a simple mechanism in html/javascript
> for playing sounds together. conceptually, sounds
..
This email was sent to you at the direct request of Silvia Pfeiffer
. You have not been added to a mailing list.
If you would prefer not to receive invitations from ANY Bebo members please
click here - http://www.bebo.com/unsub
See my latest photos, updates and friends on Bebo.
Click to view my profile.
http://www.bebo.com/in/8704689475a133136566b135
..
This email was sent to you at the direct request of Silvia Pfeiffer
. You have not been added
Hi Ian,
Thanks for taking the time to go through all the options, analyse and
understand them - especially on your birthday! :-) Much appreciated!
I agree with your analysis and the 6 options you have identified.
However, I disagree slightly with the conclusions you have come to -
mostly from a
08 at 9:57 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
wrote:
> And now we have a first demo of the proposed syntax in action. Michael
> Dale implemented SRT support like this:
>
>
>title="english SRT subtitles" src="sample_fish_text_en.srt">
>
Regards,
Silvia.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I heard some complaints about there not being any implementation of
> the suggestions I made.
>
> So here goes:
>
> 1. out-of-band
> There is an example of using srt with ogg
/
Regards,
Silvia.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:49 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I heard some complaints about there not being any implementation of
> the suggestions I made.
>
> So here goes:
>
> 1. out-of-band
> There is an example of using srt with og
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Calogero Alex Baldacchino
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyway, the use of subtitles in conjunction with screen readers might be
> problematic: a deeper synchronization with the media might be needed in
> order to have the text read just during voice pauses, to des
heers,
Silvia.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Robert O'Callahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm interested to hear people'
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:08 PM, Martin Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> Take this as an example:
>>
>> http://example.com/video.ogv"; controls>
>>
>> > src="german.dfxp">
>&g
Hi everybody,
For the last 2 months, I have been investigating means of satisfying
video accessibility needs through Ogg in Mozilla/Firefox for HTML5.
You will find a lot of information about our work at
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibility/Video_Accessibility and in the
archives of the Ogg acc
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>>
&g
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Lachlan Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 12:39 +, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> This is effectively how YouTube behaves now with their recent change to a
> widescreen player. It would look terrible
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Maik Merten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Silvia Pfeiffer schrieb:
>> In any case - if you (and also Chris Double) are satisfied with the
>> estimates you're getting for file duration/length - I'll stop arguing
>> for it. It wo
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Maik Merten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Singer schrieb:
>> IF we are to do this, I would have thought it would be by adding units to
>> the "where to seek to" argument:
>>
>> * go to this time in NPT (normal play time, which runs from 0 to media
>> duration)
>
Eric,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Eric Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Silvia -
>
> On Nov 23, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> I don't see addition of a duration attribute as much of a problem. We
>> have width and height for images
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Eric Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Maik Merten wrote:
>
>> Eric Carlson schrieb:
>>>
>>> Reporting the absolute time of the current sample won't help when the
>>> first sample of the file doesn't have a timestamp of zero. It w
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Pierre-Olivier Latour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> And the suggested "hack" is not even really usable: if you have a video
> coming
>
> from a NTSC DV source as 720x480 improperly transcoded to say MP4 720x480
>
> square pixels, using the theoretical 10:11 pixel as
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> On a little bit of a side not, may I point out that there is an updated
>> RFC for Ogg media types at http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5334.txt and it
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> I still feel rather dubious about the currentTime attribute of the video
>> element.
&
Maybe it is possible to combine the two approaches 2) and 3) as
proposed by Robert O'Callahan.
The Access-Control-Allow-Origin: "*" header would then allow access
to more information than is available through the restricted API.
(This was an approach suggested on #theora).
Regards,
Silvia.
On Mo
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There were 81 e-mails on the topic of looping audio and video.
>
> I haven't included them here because they were mostly redundant. However,
> I read them all, and it seems that the use cases and feedback boiled down
> to t
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:16 AM, Chris Double <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> video_element.src="http://www.double.co.nz/vi
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, if the codec parameter is used then the user agent may answer yes
> and no in a way that actually makes some sense.
>
> I also think that this should be explicitly related to the type
> attribute of the source elem
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Robert O'Callahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Tim Starling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> JavaScript already has measures along the lines of (2), in the context
>> of frames. The information a script can obtain about a frame fro
help in selecting sections from it for playback.
>
> Question: In the light of the combined evidence for the usefulness of
> 'start'/'end' for (implemented in Safari already), why insist
> further on avoiding those?
>
> --Markus
>
> Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eduard Pascual wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Maciej (and I think others) have suggested that it would be useful if it
>>> was
>>> possible to allow to be us
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After thinking about this, I'm not sure that limiting playback to a
section of a media file will be used very often. A developer can easily
script the same functionality as long as they don't use the default
>
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Eric Carlson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Chris Double wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
That's not
own API.
>
> And I proposed the beginnings of such an API in several postings on this
> list under the topic 'audio canvas', but it seemingly met with little
> interest. Now Flash 10 has some of the things I proposed... maybe that's
> a louder voice?
May be a bit early f
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Nils Dagsson Moskopp
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 15.10.2008, 20:03 -0700 schrieb Eric Carlson:
>>After thinking about this, I'm not sure that limiting playback to a
>> section of a media file will be used very often.
> Transcript anyone ? If yo
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Eric Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Eric Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you misunderstood wha
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Eric Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Eric Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As we discussed on
Uhmmm, ooo ... yes - I didn't do the maths ... but you get the point. ;-)
S.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't count on it: people leave tabs in browsers open and videos
> playing and it might just play 9 times b
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Eric Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>> There is no way to say "loop forever" right now primarily because doing so
>> would mean complicating the syntax of the playcount attribute to be not
>> just a number. Y
Don't count on it: people leave tabs in browsers open and videos
playing and it might just play 9 times before anyone
touches the tab again.
Silvia.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Kristof Zelechovski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Play count 9 means just that number, it doe
I love the library and would even recommend telling the WHATWG mailing
list about it. Maybe it can become part of what WHATWG provide in the
interim.
Regards,
Silvia.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:45 AM, Michael Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just wanted to give this list heads up about the mv_emb
YouTube has a "loop" parameter (&loop=1), which you need to add to the
URL of the video file in your embed code. It is a boolean, which puts
the number of loops into the control of the user rather than the web
page author.
I'm not sure if that's a better way than what we currently have, but
it's t
I don't think it needs the word "required". But it shouldn't be "forbidden". :-)
Regards,
Silvia.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:34 AM, WeBMartians <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that scrubbing requires non-1X audio. However, to require it is going
> to cause CoDec/PlugIn developers not just he
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:28 AM, Peter Kasting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Eric Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Some media formats and/or engines may not support reverse playback, but I
>> think it is a mistake for the spec to mandate this behavior. Why
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Ben Adida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In general, I find it surprising that HTML5 wants to reinvent
> everything, rather than at least partially rely on work done in other
> groups.
I don't see it as such. HTML5 is analysing the situation from all
aspects with a v
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Ben Adida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shannon wrote:
>> I think you were on to something with the CSS-like approach. Ian has
>> stated earlier that class should be considered a generic categorisation
>> element rather than only a CSS hook.
>
> Three things:
>
> 1)
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 12:59 +0200 22/08/08, Aaron Leventhal wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone put any further thought on what to do about captions for Ogg?
>>
>> We've started to throw some thoughts together here:
>> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Accessibili
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I honestly don't see significant interest in computer-readable metadata.
> Just look at the average user's media library; most users have terrible
> metadata hygene.
It is true, we live in the middle ages of metadata hygene
Just a little side-track for the video issues around this thread:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Ben Adida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also note that even CC leadership omits the license URI.
>
> So you want a URI in the video content itself? What good would that do?
With links directly in th
Hi Philip, Dave, all,
I agree with Philip and Dave that we need a simple way to include the
cue ranges concept into video for video authors.
As one of the authors of Annodex, I have been meaning to look over the
HTML5 video element for a while and examine how it's details works -
sorry for my lat
I think this all makes sense.
+1 from me.
Cheers,
Silvia.
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently implementing more of and (in Opera) and
> will probably have quite a lot of questions/comments during the coming
> months. If this is n
Hi Dave,
If the W3C standardises time ranges through a URI approach, would
there still be a need to have a specification in the DOM or the HTML
code?
I am talking about this planned activity
http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-fragments-wg.html and a scheme akin to
the one mentioned here
http://www.w
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Robert J Crisler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue of a small licensing fee didn't stop MPEG 1 Part 3 from becoming
> the ubiquitous world standard for audio.
MP3 because an ISO/IEC standard in 1991, but patent enforcement did
not happen until 1998, until which
Hi Charles,
It was my understanding that video controls should be able to be added
through style sheet mechanisms. Thus, there is no pre-set
specification, but it is rather left to the web page designer. The
javascript API will allow to hook up the controls with the video
player. The controls coul
I of course meant: "royalty-free"!!
S.
On Dec 30, 2007 5:41 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The spec is not finalised and the a/v baseline codec question is one
> of the open questions.
>
> As exerience from the W3C video workshop shows, all invol
Ivo, all,
Xiph has decided to make .oga and .ogv the extensions of the future,
to avoid the current confusion between .ogg being in use for vorbis
and theora files. The use of extensions is mostly to select between
applications, so .oga for audio files and .ogv for video files make
more sense beca
The spec is not finalised and the a/v baseline codec question is one
of the open questions.
As exerience from the W3C video workshop shows, all involved parties
want to find a solution for a baseline codec that can actually be
mandated. I am confident that the new year will see us solve this
probl
Pleasure. :-)
We all have misunderstandings and it's good to learn.
Also, I honestly believe we need more information on all aspects of
codecs before we can come to a good decision on an optimal codec for
HTML5 - if such should exist.
Regards,
Silvia.
On Dec 14, 2007 6:57 AM, Charles <[EMAIL PR
Charles,
This needs some correction, too, I think. :-)
Ogg Theora is not the same as VC3. It was built out of VC3 and the
specification is available freely and openly and there has been a 1.0
release of the specification, so it is also managed well from that
point of view. That Xiph is not an off
t; support a considered codec for desktop and embedded environments.
> >> Silicon support is essential for battery-powered devices. A pure SW
> >> implementation of a codec will be slower and will drain the
> >> battery way
> >> faster than a codec that rel
-Original Message-
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ext
> >Silvia Pfeiffer
> >Sent: 12 December, 2007 08:24
> >To: Dave Singer
> >Cc: WHATWG Proposals
> >Subject: Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5
On Dec 12, 2007 4:08 PM, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
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
as long as the Ogg community does not
provide a media mapping (i.e. a prescrption on how to do the embedding
into the Ogg container), there is no standard means for doing so.
Thus, if there is a need for such a mapping, the Ogg community would
indeed need to create such a specification, unless there is no need
for encapsulating the caption files directly inside the Ogg container.
I believe howere, that such a specification is necessary to enable
ubiquitous usabilty and uptake.
Regards,
Silvia.
---
Dr Silvia Pfeiffer
Annodex Association
Xiph Foundation Member
This is indeed a topic relevant to HTML5, but not in its scope to address.
When we developed Annodex (see
http://annodex.net/TR/draft-pfeiffer-temporal-fragments-03.txt), we
researched this topic intensively and discussed it within the URI
mailing list and here are the results in summary:
The mea
It is in the process of being changed, so "video/ogg" is accurate.
FYI: The current draft is at
https://trac.xiph.org/browser/experimental/ivo/drafts/draft-xiph-rfc3534bis.txt
.
Feedback should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
Silvia.
On Nov 9, 2007 10:11 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Just a further note on this since I have received a few private concerns:
On 10/24/07, Silvia Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The new way:
> Vorbis audio alone in Ogg container
>
> or
> (preferred)
audio.ogg is for a Ogg Vorbis file in the traditional sen
> What about Dirac video with Vorbis audio?
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Thomas Davies wrote:
> >
> > We haven't finalised profiles and levels yet, but there will probably be
> > two profiles, a Main profile covering everything, and a Professional
> > profile covering a restricted set for professiona
Xiph has taken on board the many comments received over the last years
wrt MIME types and file extensions and is working on this more
appropriate I-D for MIME types cited by Ivo.
Here is what effect it has on the WHAT-WG spec:
The spec:
> Theora video and Vorbis audio in Ogg container
>
The
Hi Chris,
this is a very good discussion to have and I would be curious about
the opinions of people.
CMML has been developed with an aim to provide "html"-type timed text
annotations for audio/video - in particular hyperlinks and annotations
to temporal sections of videos. This is both, more gen
Jeroen,
On 6/27/07, Jerason Banes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see a better option. The purpose
of the HTML5 spec is to provide a unified web applications platform that
supports the existing web in a practical manner. If the spec sticks with
Theora as the
Hi Jerason,
I think there may be a lack of information about Theora rather than
anything else.
On 6/27/07, Jerason Banes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If I may, I'd like to echo Timeless's point here. I've been watching this
thread with great interest and believe I understand both sides of the iss
So a company which owns a patent on a standard that can bought and
read at freedom is just as bad as a company which owns a patent on a
standard that has absolutely no public documentation?
If you're talking about Ogg Theora, then you've got your facts wrong.
First of all, Ogg Theora is not owne
On 6/25/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, and will you look at this, Apple, Inc. holds one the patents! US
6,134,243 [4]. So Apple gets money for every single license sold.
How nice. They are attempting to lock vendors into MPEG-4 and get
money from licenses in the proce
Hi Dave,
On 6/25/07, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 10:16 +1000 25/06/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>Thanks Maciej for summarising Apple's position so nicely.
>
>I think it's good that you have spelled it out:
>Apple is happy to support MPEG-4, whic
On 6/25/07, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our current plan is to primarily support MPEG-4, including H.264/AVC
video and AAC audio. We may support other codecs as well - it won't
necessarily be the full set of codecs supported by QuickTime. This
has been discussed to death already,
On 6/25/07, Spartanicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally I detest Java (resource hog, slow as wading through molasses)
and don't have it installed, so forgive my potential ignorance.
Don't we all hate java? ;-)
Why
create an HTML element with the express purpose of supporting
video nati
On 6/24/07, Spartanicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Imo for content providers to choose over Flash, client support
needs to be close to Flash. Requiring IE and Safari users to go and
download and install third party software to play content would imo be
considered too much of a hindrance when Fla
On 6/24/07, Spartanicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Allan Sandfeld Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thus, I suggest to change the wording to "User agents must support
>> Theora video and Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format".
>>
>Or a clear sign that the video tag was doomed to f
Such a development is a clear sign to change the spec to require
theora/vorbis support instead of just recommending it. A baseline
codec has to be a requirement.
Thus, I suggest to change the wording to "User agents must support
Theora video and Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format".
Hi all,
the Annodex Association and Xiph Foundation are in the process of
implementing a small-footprint library and firefox plugin called
OggPlay that provides native Ogg Theora support.
There's a javascript API in the process of being specified - and I
think it would be valuable for others to
On 4/12/07, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 12:12 +1000 11/04/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>On 4/11/07, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Wouldn't it be simpler to use "video/ogg" and "audio/ogg" as the base
>>types here?
On 4/11/07, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 10, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Ralph Giles wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 11:21:10AM -0700, Dave Singer wrote:
>
>>> # application/ogg; disposition=moving-image; codecs="theora, vorbis"
>>> # application/ogg; disposition=sound; codecs="s
Hi Charles, Dave,
On 4/10/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
On 4/9/07, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Theora video and Vorbis audio in Ogg container. (application/ogg; .ogg)
> * Dirac video and Vorbis audio in Ogg container. (application/ogg; .ogg)
> *
On 3/30/07, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Gervase Markham wrote:
> Dave Singer wrote:
> >
> > No, writing it into the HTML specification is not a commercial reason.
>
> Assuming you have commercial reasons for supporting HTML 5 (which I
> suspect you do, otherwise yo
401 - 500 of 510 matches
Mail list logo
