Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

I agree with this. The tag isn't worth much to the Web if it's not interoperable among *all* Web browsers. That includes, unfortunately, Internet Explorer. That is why I think trying to pick a baseline format in the WhatWG is premature. Until the element moves to the HTML WG and we fin

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Also sprach Dave Singer: > I really think that this conversation has morphed from 'should HTML > recommend or mandate codecs' into mostly 'why apple should support > ogg/theora'. Even the first question is a pretty tangential one to > the design of the tag itself, the CSS, and so on. >

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

On Apr 3, 2007, at 21:52, Dave Singer wrote: OK, I am not a lawyer and I do not represent the patent holders, and it is not my job to help build their business. I have enough trouble building ours. However, there are both reference and open- source implementations of MPEG codecs (e.g. x264

[whatwg] Section nesting menu and an old HTML 3 friend LH

Ok, I'll stop making a nuisance of myself, now. ;) I forget that you are all probably quite fully aware of all the debate that goes into this sort of thing on various developer specific lists (like css-discuss). I guess that is one more argument for the DL folks. ;) It's always seemed a little

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: This isn't the first time you've restated something in what seems like a needlessly inflammatory way. Your earlier message in the thread basically said that unless Apple implements Ogg Theora, we "don't actually have a commitment to interoperability". Close. "Unless A

Re: [whatwg] Section nesting menu and an old HTML 3 friend LH

Explicitly semantically: use DD for header, DT as a wrapper for items. It means that a top-level list with a header must be wrapped in a DL for completeness. Sample Menu File New Open Save

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Kevin Calhoun wrote: > > A number of the ideas from Apple's HTML proposal have already been > incorporated into the current working draft of Web Applications 1.0. > , naturally. And I'm actively working on incorporating mor

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:13 PM, L. David Baron wrote: On Tuesday 2007-04-03 11:52 -0700, Dave Singer wrote: Surely people have comments or questions on other aspects of our proposal? There is new stuff, new ideas, and open areas, all ripe for discussionwe have engineers standing by, eager to

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

On Tuesday 2007-04-03 11:52 -0700, Dave Singer wrote: > Surely people have comments or questions on other aspects of our > proposal? There is new stuff, new ideas, and open areas, all ripe > for discussionwe have engineers standing by, eager to refine and > improve the video tag design itse

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

On Apr 3, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors, it won't cost us anything in patent license fees. Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and Microsoft, I guess

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Maik Merten schrieb: > This is vastly off-topic, but is there a formalized way for 3rd parties > to register their qt components and have them in the download service? Oh, didn't look hard enough yet. http://developer.apple.com/quicktime/qtcdform.html Maik Merten

Re: [whatwg] Section nesting menu and an old HTML 3 friend LH

Ya, it was fast and ugly - more pseudo mark-up to highlight the questions than anything. Of course, this is how things are *currently* marked up in these situations - it's the only logical way. What I am driving at (very poorly, apparently, so you have my apologies) is that some of us lowly autho

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Dave Singer schrieb: > At 18:44 +0200 3/04/07, Maik Merten wrote: >> Personally I don't see a reason why Apple couldn't simply queue an Ogg >> Theora component provided by a 3rd party into the QuickTime component > > Alas, that wouldn't be Apple then that was complying, merely that we > make it p

Re: [whatwg] Section nesting menu and an old HTML 3 friend LH

"Tim Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >As I see, there is no way to do this (my more complex variation on >your example), properly, correct? I intentionally threw in a >mish-mash of ways of doing it, so there is more to work with - >flattened, as you did, lh's and hn's. We are just supposed to

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

I really think that this conversation has morphed from 'should HTML recommend or mandate codecs' into mostly 'why apple should support ogg/theora'. Even the first question is a pretty tangential one to the design of the tag itself, the CSS, and so on. Surely people have comments or questions

[whatwg] Section nesting menu and an old HTML 3 friend LH

Oops, somehow the list fell off the reply-to chain. On 4/3/07, Spartanicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the above case both lists belong to the section established by the > h1, if the second list should not be in that section then the second > list should not be nested within the first. You'd

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors, it won't cost us anything in patent license fees. Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and Microsoft, I guess) a financial competitive advantage over other browsers.

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Maciej Stachowiak schrieb: > Patent risk and unsuitability for limited processing power devices. > (Which I'm tired of repeating.) Opportunity cost of putting engineering > work into a less useful codec vs more useful ones. I'd say as H.264 is far more complex technology the risk for submarine pa

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Hey Gerv, On Apr 3, 2007, at 5:51 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: Maciej Stachowiak wrote: What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors, it won't cost us anything in patent license fees. Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and Microsoft, I guess) a financial c

Re: [whatwg] Apply script.defer to internal scripts

Your description matches rather ASYNC than DEFER. I do not object ASYNC depending on SRC. Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stewart Brodie Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 4:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [whatwg] Apply script.d

Re: [whatwg] Apply script.defer to internal scripts

The semantic of the DEFER attribute is already specified. You may complain about it of course but it has nothing to do with my suggestion. I only think it should apply to embedded scripts as well, which is IMHO completely independent of the semantic. Browser incompatibilities are not an issue in

Re: [whatwg] Apply script.defer to internal scripts

"Hallvord R M Steen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27/03/07, Kristof Zelechovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 3.17.1. The script element specification says: > > > > defer (if the src attribute is present) > > > > async (if the src attribute is present) > > I understand that the async attrib

Re: [whatwg] Apply script.defer to internal scripts

On 27/03/07, Kristof Zelechovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 3.17.1. The script element specification says: defer (if the src attribute is present) async (if the src attribute is present) I understand that the async attribute must depend on the src attribute because it is needed and meaningful

Re: [whatwg] on codecs in a 'video' tag.

Maciej Stachowiak wrote: What I mean is that unlike the case for other browser vendors, it won't cost us anything in patent license fees. Ah, right. So you want MPEG because it gives Apple (and Microsoft, I guess) a financial competitive advantage over other browsers. The problem is not that