On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:07:50 +0200, Charles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With all due respect: the mission of the WWW Corporation is to
create standards, not to create situations.
Not to speak for Robert, but I'm guessing that his point is that the
W3C isn't creating a standard here.
Note that
On 2 Apr 2008, at 4:53 pm, Krzysztof Żelechowski wrote:
Dnia 01-04-2008, Wt o godzinie 23:38 +0100, David Gerard pisze:
The actual solution is a large amount of compelling content in Theora
or similar. Wikimedia is working on this, though we're presently
hampered by a severe lack of money
On 2 Apr 2008, at 16:55, Robert J Crisler wrote:
It will be very, very difficult to develop critical mass for content
encoded in Theora (or Dirac), much less ubiquity. I'm not saying
there's no point in trying. I applaud the effort, though I have
misgivings about the W3C setting itself up
Dnia 02-04-2008, Śr o godzinie 10:55 -0500, Robert J Crisler pisze:
Why should the W3C choose not create a better situation than the
current one (which is a mess for developers and a mess for users),
while continuing to work on the ideal?
With all due respect:
the mission of the WWW
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
The current standard for publishing media on the Web, in particular
consumer media, is Adobe Flash. This is the case not because of the
codecs inside Adobe Flash but because sites such as YouTube enable
consumers to publish media without having to worry about license fees
Robert J Crisler wrote:
From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that
the ideals of the W3C as expressed in 3.12.7.1 http://3.12.7.1 would
result in a situation that would be superior to simply letting the
international standards body for audio and video codecs deal with these
On 01/04/2008, Gervase Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert J Crisler wrote:
From my perspective, and for what it's worth, I doubt that
the ideals of the W3C as expressed in 3.12.7.1 http://3.12.7.1 would
result in a situation that would be superior to simply letting the
Robert J Crisler wrote:
The text under 3.12.7.1 could have been written ten years ago:
It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support
the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the
current players: we need a codec that is known to not require
I'm not saying that the MPEG codecs meet the 3.12.7.1 requirements. I'm
saying that ISO/IEC MPEG standards are vastly preferable to the nonstandard,
single-company junk that web developers are saddled with now. The W3C need
not abandon its ideals to declare that MPEG standards are better than the
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
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
Bink is a better-than-DVD class codec - it compresses at higher
quality than DVD
at up to three times the playback speed!
Bink uses up to 16 MB less memory at runtime than other codecs.
It has been
Out of the question, it must be royalty-free. That's one of the requirements,
so unless you can convince the holder to go RF, no chance.
El Lunes 07 Ene 2008, Federico Bianco Prevot escribió:
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
Bink
If you need to pay ¢1 for copies distributed, then it isn't royalty free and
it can't be on the standard as a requirement. Flat fee is not royalty free.
YES, I MEANT BEING ABLE TO USE IT WITHOUT PAYING ANY KIND OF FEE.
Am I too daft for my words to be understood?
El Lunes 07 Ene 2008,
At 19:29 +0100 7/01/08, Federico Bianco Prevot wrote:
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
I get the impression that this is not an openly-specified codec,
which I rather think is a problem. That is, there is neither a
publicly
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 01:50:09PM -0800, Dave Singer wrote:
I get the impression that this is not an openly-specified codec,
which I rather think is a problem. That is, there is neither a
publicly available spec. nor publicly-available source, which means
that it is controlled by one
On 07/01/2008, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 19:29 +0100 7/01/08, Federico Bianco Prevot wrote:
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
I get the impression that this is not an openly-specified codec,
which I rather think is a
I don't find anything objectionable with that suggestion. It gives us the
best of two worlds. Of course, should x264 be freed, there would be no
longer any reason not to put Ogg alongside x264 in the spec as MUST.
I have a suggestion:
Nokia, Apple: you want H.264, you free H.264. Make it
At 21:59 + 7/01/08, David Gerard wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 19:29 +0100 7/01/08, Federico Bianco Prevot wrote:
Has anyone considered Bink video as a viable option?
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
I get the impression that this is not an
[snip]
How about this permathread gets a @whatwg.org mailing list all of its own?
Just a suggestion...
dan
On 12 Dec 2007, at 01:41, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
1) maybe (I've heard game vendors cited, not sure which ones)
I know someone already posted a list, but it is used within all Unreal
Engine 2.5 (i.e., UT 2004) and Unreal Engine 3 (i.e., UT 3) games
(which I'm sure you can find a long
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 will update the spec to require that
Dnia 12-12-2007, Śr o godzinie 00:11 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
I'd rephrase it as
# Has had traction, time and exposure in the market, enough so patent threats
should have arisen already.
That is, as a study of a troll's lifestyle shows, indefinite.
Dnia 11-12-2007, Wt o godzinie 18:53 -0500, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)
pisze:
Wanna know what happened to the last troll that attacked free software? Ask
Darl McBride. Everyone is under the possibility of constant attack from
trolls.
He was not a patent troll, he was acting for Microsoft and
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
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
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
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
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 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,
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
Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Sorry to be getting back to this thread this late, but I am trying to
catch up on email.
I'd like to contribute some thoughts on Ogg, CMML and Captions and
will cite selectively from emails in this thread.
snip
This would be problematic when downloading the
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Currently alternative content for audio and video isn't dealt with
very well, I think. It does address fallback content for older user
agents but it does not address disabling support for video and not being
able to support video (Lynx) at
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, ddailey wrote:
As a newcomer to this group, please forgive my ignorance of discussions
that, undoubtedly, have already taken place, but as I have been reading
these threads on video and timed media and object, a couple of
questions have come to mind:
1. why not just
At 0:34 + 13/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, ddailey wrote:
As a newcomer to this group, please forgive my ignorance of discussions
that, undoubtedly, have already taken place, but as I have been reading
these threads on video and timed media and object, a couple of
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Dan Brickley wrote:
I've not followed it, ... but there's a SMIL subset integrated with
XHTML at http://www.w3.org/TR/XHTMLplusSMIL/ ... if you find SMIL too
large, perhaps this or another profile is less intimidating?
This profile doesn't seem to define error handling,
At 4:04 + 9/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote:
This e-mail replies to e-mails sent to both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED], as the thread in question ended up spilling over both
mailing lists.
WHEN REPLYING TO THIS E-MAIL PLEASE PICK ONE MAILING LIST AND REPLY TO
JUST THAT ONE. PLEASE DO
At 11:37 +0200 29/03/07, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:04:33 +0200, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Laurens Holst wrote:
So, what do you think would be needed to fix this situation.
In my dream world, IE would support dispatch by MIME type and
authors who
On Oct 8, 2007, at 22:12, Dave Singer wrote:
At 12:22 +0300 8/10/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Could someone who knows more about the production of audio
descriptions, please, comment if audio description can in practice
be implemented as a supplementary sound track that plays
concurrently
On Oct 8, 2007, at 22:52, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
I'm a bit confused about why W3C's Timed Text Candidate
Recommendation hasn't been mentioned in this thread, especially
given that Flash objects are the VIDEO element's biggest
competitor and Flash CS3's closed captioning component
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In that case, an entire alternative soundtrack encoded using a
general-purpose codec would be called for. Is it reasonable to expect
content providers to take the bandwidth hit? Or should we expect content
providers to provide an entire alternative video file?
Just for
On Oct 8, 2007, at 22:05, Dave Singer wrote:
We suggested two ways to achieve captioning (a) by selection of
element, at the HTML level ('if you need captions, use this resource')
Makes sense to me in case of open captions burned onto the video track.
and (b) styling of elements at the HTML
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis schrieb:
I'm a bit confused about why W3C's Timed Text Candidate Recommendation
hasn't been mentioned in this thread, especially given that Flash
objects are the VIDEO element's biggest competitor and Flash CS3's
closed captioning component supports Timed Text. I haven't
At 10:03 +0300 9/10/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 22:52, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote:
I'm a bit confused about why W3C's Timed Text Candidate
Recommendation hasn't been mentioned in this thread, especially
given that Flash objects are the VIDEO element's biggest
competitor and
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:03:41 +0200, Maik Merten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ttaf1-dfxp-20061116/
Actually I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to have an attribute for
media elements specifying a URI for a file containing Timed Text. These
externally stored (not
On Oct 9, 2007, at 19:24, Dave Singer wrote:
At 10:03 +0300 9/10/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
My understanding is that the purpose of this thread isn't to find
a captioning spec for HTML 5 but to find the right way to do
closed captions in Ogg.
Oh. I was under the impression that this thread
At 9:22 +0300 9/10/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 22:12, Dave Singer wrote:
At 12:22 +0300 8/10/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Could someone who knows more about the production of audio
descriptions, please, comment if audio description can in practice
be implemented as a
On 10/9/07, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the delivery is streaming, or in some other way where the
selection of tracks can be done prior to transport, then there isn't
a bandwidth hit at all, of course. Then the ask this resource to
present itself in the captioned fashion is a
At 0:25 +0100 10/10/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote:
On 10/9/07, Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the delivery is streaming, or in some other way where the
selection of tracks can be done prior to transport, then there isn't
a bandwidth hit at all, of course. Then the ask this
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:14:05 +0200, Silvia Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Chris,
this is a very good discussion to have and I would be curious about
the opinions of people.
An alternative is to use SVG as a container format. You can include
captions in various forms, provide
(Heavy quote snipping. Picking on particular points.)
On Oct 8, 2007, at 03:14, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
This is both, more generic than captions, and less generic in that
captions have formatting and are displayed in a particular way.
I think we should avoid overdoing captioning or
At 9:45 +1200 8/10/07, Chris Double wrote:
The video element description states that Theora, Voribis and Ogg
container should be supported. How should closed captions and audio
description tracks for accessibility be supported using video and
these formats?
I was pointed to a page outlining
At 8:58 +0200 8/10/07, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 02:14:05 +0200, Silvia
Pfeiffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Chris,
this is a very good discussion to have and I would be curious about
the opinions of people.
An alternative is to use SVG as a container
format. You
At 12:22 +0300 8/10/07, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Is 3GPP Timed Text aka. MPEG-4 part 17 unencumbered? (IANAL, this
isn't an endorsement of the format--just a question.)
I am not authoritative, but I have not seen any disclosures myself.
an alternate audio track (e.g. speex as suggested by you
Dave Singer wrote:
an alternate audio track (e.g. speex as suggested by you for
accessibility to blind people),
My understanding is that at least conceptually an audio description
track is *supplementary* to the normal sound track. Could someone who
knows more about the production of audio
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Martin Atkins wrote:
I must disagree with the focus on the comparatively complicated case
(video as part of a web application) vs. the more obvious case of I
just want to embed a video in my web page.
The spec has since been updated to include the ability for
This e-mail replies to e-mails sent to both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED], as the thread in question ended up spilling over both
mailing lists.
WHEN REPLYING TO THIS E-MAIL PLEASE PICK ONE MAILING LIST AND REPLY TO
JUST THAT ONE. PLEASE DO NOT CROSS-POST THIS THREAD TO BOTH LISTS.
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
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote:
I guess I wasn't paying attention when the Audio interface was being
discussed, because I totally missed it.
Looking at it now, I'd make some alterations to it.
For example, there's a difference between pausing and stopping.
(With
Actually the proposed model allows for the use of real content, not just an
attribute. This is generally regarded as a better approach for accessibility
since it provides much more flexibility (and as it happens provides for better
backwards compatibility as well. So instead of
video src=foo
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:57:16 +0200, Stuart Langridge [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Is the intention that fallback content inside the video element is
displayed for all of
1. the source URL throws an error
2. the user agent has video switched off somehow
3. the user agent doesn't support video ?
Laurens Holst wrote:
Matthew Raymond schreef:
Sure, native video playback, yay. But what has that got to do with
creating a video element instead of using object. Objects can play
Theora, too, you know. Natively. Just like browsers can render SVG in
object tags, natively.
It's
On 3/29/07, Laurens Holst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The URL parameter (as also seen in e.g. Quicktime and Flash) is imho a
dirty hack to work around implementations not providing plugins with a
streaming file reader object. At least, that is the only explanation I
can come up with. There is a
Henri Sivonen wrote:
I've asked about this before but I still don't understand it: Why
doesn't Gecko completely ignore the classid?
Apart from the fact that this would technically be a spec violation, it actually
breaks some pages (because the ActiveX and NPAPI versions of some plug-ins
Laurens Holst wrote:
As said, I tried a few things with embedding an image, video and SVG
with the object tag:
...
First of all, one annoying thing is that you have to provide sizes,
otherwise the object will not be visible.
At least in Mozilla, this is false for images. It should become
Laurens Holst wrote:
One of the main reasons that object is still broken on the web and why
embed needs to be used is Mozilla; their plugin finder doesn’t work
with object.
I'm sorry, but that's false. See my other post (under Re: video element
feedback) and
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:59:14 +0200, Benoit Piette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the same train of thought, a document tag might be useful. I always
found anoying that for many embeded documents (word or pdf) you would have a
second user interface that have similar functionnality to the web
At 22:17 + UTC, on 2007-03-25, Kornel Lesinski wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:28:38 -, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]allowing authors the ability to override the browsers controls [...]
Seems to me the user shoudl be in control here [...]
[...] Authors use
From HTML 4.01:
type = content-type [CI]
This attribute specifies the content type for the data specified by data.
This attribute is
optional but recommended when data is specified since it allows the user agent
to avoid loading
information for unsupported content types. If the value of
Chris Adams wrote:
Actually that sounds like a splendid idea to me.
although I am not sure about using the form tag. what about something like?
video src='some_file.ogg'
button type='rewind' /
button type='playpause' /
button type='stop' /
button type='fastforward' /
/video
Why
The browser could control this, yes; however I believe that the browser
should really be as transparent as possible
as to not be a limiting factor in development.
there can always be browser defaults that take over, but by allowing authors
the ability to override the browsers controls
will allow
Chris Adams wrote:
there can always be browser defaults that take over, but by allowing
authors the ability to override the browsers controls
will allow for the flexibility of
a) allowing for disabled controls (perhaps disabling fast-forward for
training videos)
Seems to me the user shoudl
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:28:38 -, Elliotte Harold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
there can always be browser defaults that take over, but by allowing
authors the ability to override the browsers controls
will allow for the flexibility of
a) allowing for disabled controls (perhaps disabling
On Mar 18, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Matthew Ratzloff wrote:
Slightly more complex use case:
object classid=clsid:02BF25D5-8C17-4B23-BC80-D3488ABDDC6B
codebase=http://www.apple.com/qtactivex/qtplugin.cab;
width=200
height=16
param name=src value=my-audio.mp3 /
param
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:33:39PM -0700, Eric Carlson wrote:
Yes, the UA needs the offset/chunking table in order to calculate
a file offset for a time, but this is efficient in the case of
container formats in which the table is stored together with other
information that's needed
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 01:57:45AM -0700, Kevin Marks wrote:
How does one seek a Vorbis file with video in and recover framing?
It looks like you skip to an arbitrary point and scan for 'OggS' then
do a 64kB CRC to make sure this isn't a fluke. Then you have some
packets that correspond to
Geoffrey Sneddon schrieb:
That sort of info is held within the container, so everything within Ogg
(so both Theora and Dirac) will suffer from it. H.264 being part of the
MPEG-4 standard follows what Kevin Marks said:
On 24 Mar 2007, at 08:57, Kevin Marks wrote:
2. define a chunk/offset
In this case, there is a big difference between streamed data, which
can be played from various positions, and non-streamed data which
requires a complete download, or at least the start of the file.
Perhaps there should be some reflection of this in the tag?
On 23 Mar 2007, at 03:15,
On 3/23/07, Sander Tekelenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know of a video container format that allows named anchors to be
specified, though.
QuickTime let's authors define points in a .mov container as chapters,
which, in the cotext of the Web, could function as named anchors I'd
Håkon Wium Lie schrieb:
Does Dirac aim at becoming a member in the Ogg family, or are you
primarily working towards a standalone format?
Dirac is container neutral to my knowledge. The implementation targeted
at end-users is embedding it in Ogg, though, so it can e.g. use the free
Ogg audio
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 10:24:30 -, Silvia Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's say there's http://example.com/example.html page which contains
embedded video:
...video src=video.ogg...
I'd like to be able to construct URL like:
http://example.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:35
that would cause UA
The difference between streaming and non-streaming is artificial and
not technically necessary - except for life content, where you cannot
jump into the future.
Silvia.
On 3/23/07, Gareth Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In this case, there is a big difference between streamed data, which
can be
How about the following idea:
Example.html contains:
video id=myvideo_1 src=video.ogg
to provide the full video
video id=myvideo_2 src=video.ogg?t=0:12:35
to provide the video from offset 12:35
video id=myvideo_3 src=video.ogg?t=0:12:35/0:20:40
to provide the video segment between offset
On Mar 23, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
On 3/23/07, Nicholas Shanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can't we have all of:
1) A way for authors to match up timecodes with fragment identifiers
in the fallback content
2) A way for UAs to skip to that time code if a fragment identifier
is
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:57:24 -, Silvia Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
video id=myvideo_3 src=video.ogg?t=0:12:35/0:20:40
to provide the video segment between offset 12:35 and 20:40
video id=myvideo_4 src=video.ogg?id=section4
to provide the video from named offset section4
These
On Mar 23, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Hi Eric,
On 3/24/07, Eric Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even without a server component, #2 and #3 do not require the UA to
download the full file if it can use byte range requests for random
access
and the file format has time to
As a newcomer to this group, please forgive my ignorance of discussions
that, undoubtedly, have already taken place, but as I have been reading
these threads on video and timed media and object, a couple of questions
have come to mind:
1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in
Hi
Having been pointed at this discussion by Christian, I thought I'd let
you know a bit more about where Dirac is as a royalty-free open source
codec. We're certainly very keen for Dirac to be considered as one of
the supported video formats.
Dirac has been in development for 4 years. In
This is maybe off-topic to some degree.
What are the DRM constraints of this format?
I only ask as your organisation is embarking on an MS-DRM fueled
online media project, and I am curious as to the position of this codec.
thanks
On 22 Mar 2007, at 12:28, Thomas Davies wrote:
Hi
Having
: [whatwg] video element proposal
This is maybe off-topic to some degree.
What are the DRM constraints of this format?
I only ask as your organisation is embarking on an MS-DRM fueled
online media project, and I am curious as to the position of this codec
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 14:57:08 +0100, ddailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way
that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco.
Reasons for not using t:video were that it was 1) complicated and 2)
not used.
Thanks
ddailey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:03:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote
1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way
that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco.
Reasons for not using t:video were that it was 1) complicated and 2)
not used.
Thanks
Martin Atkins wrote:
ddailey wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 13:03:24, Anne van Kesteren wrote
1. why not just include SMIL as a part of HTML, much in the same way
that it is integrated with SVG? It is an existing W3C reco.
Reasons for not using t:video were that it was 1) complicated and
2)
Sorry to jump into this conversation at such a late point, but I only
just joined the mailing list.
About 8 years ago, we had the idea of using fragment offsets to start
playing from offsets of media files. However, in discussions with the
URI standardisation team at W3C it turned out that
On 22 Mar 2007, at 20:53, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
Sorry to jump into this conversation at such a late point, but I only
just joined the mailing list.
About 8 years ago, we had the idea of using fragment offsets to start
playing from offsets of media files. However, in discussions with the
URI
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 20:53:48 -, Silvia Pfeiffer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
About 8 years ago, we had the idea of using fragment offsets to start
playing from offsets of media files. However, in discussions with the
URI standardisation team at W3C it turned out that fragment offsets
are only
Kornel Lesinski:
http://example.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:35
that would cause UA to start playing the embedded video.ogg from
12:35.
That would limit documents to one |video| (or |audio|) element.
[My apologies for initially responding off-list. That was unintentional. I'm
posting an updated version.]
At 20:04 + UTC, on 2007-03-21, Martin Atkins wrote:
Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
[...] URL:http://domain.example/movie.ogg#21:08, to mean fetch the
movie and start playing it at 21
At 19:46 + UTC, on 2007-03-22, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007, at 19:23, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
[...]
We're not talking about IDs, just fragment identifiers. My point
was that
with video, you could use fragment identifiers *without* the need
for the author to provide IDs.
I
On 23 Mar 2007, at 01:30, Sander Tekelenburg wrote:
(Note that a mechanism to allow authors to define anchors in videos
is not a
solution, because it's then still the author who is in control.
What I'm
suggesting is about giving the user control.)
Can't we have all of:
1) A way for
At 07:53 +1100 UTC, on 2007-03-23, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
[...]
About 8 years ago, we had the idea of using fragment offsets to start
playing from offsets of media files. However, in discussions with the
URI standardisation team at W3C it turned out that fragment offsets
are only being seen
601 - 700 of 846 matches
Mail list logo
