On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Aaron Franco aa...@ngrinder.com wrote:
I can see how it is counter productive in the creation of the
specification,
but the fact that such licensing is being considered for what is
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
Without a baseline codec, there is no guaranteed usefulness to the audio or
video tags. As for audio, I suggest supporting at least WAV (or FLAC) and
Vorbis at least. For video, our best shot is either Dirac or Theora. Unless
somebody else
2010/3/28 Remco remc...@gmail.com:
This is what I don't understand either. It's not like H.264 won't be
successful if another baseline format is specified in the
recommendation. So, all this PR about submarine patents to scare
people away from unencumbered formats is not necessary.
This is what I don't understand either. It's not like H.264 won't be
successful if another baseline format is specified in the
It will offer a workable possibility for smaller video producers to NOT licence
H.264, and use Theora instead. This would be very counterproductive for
those with
I'm trying to piece some things together. I end up with this idea:
ele.style.height returns the used value if display is not set to
none. By used value I assume the CSSOM spec means the actual value
used. e.g. if the span takes up 100 pixels, it would return a value
equivalent to 100px.
Hi everyone
I am trying to understand when an element can have flow content
defined in the spec [1]. The general rule states:
should have either at least one descendant text node that is not
inter-element whitespace, or at least one descendant element node that
is embedded content
It also
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The
GIF format made things hairy later, but with JPEG and PNG, the issues
eventually resolved
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody complained about implementing support for an image format. The
GIF format made things hairy
On 3/28/10 12:21 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
ele.style.height returns the used value if display is not set to none.
By used value I assume the CSSOM spec means the actual value used.
It means used value as defined in the CSS specification. See CSS 2.1
section 6.1.3.
I see a few old messages on
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ashley Sheridan
a...@ashleysheridan.co.ukwrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all browsers initially supported BMPs, didn't
they? Nobody complained
On 28 March 2010 21:11, Kelly Clowers kelly.clow...@gmail.com wrote:
For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an
audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec
(especially
since Vorbis has a lot of high profile use that should have drawn
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 13:11 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 10:49, Ashley Sheridan a...@ashleysheridan.co.uk
wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-28 at 10:29 -0700, Kelly Clowers wrote:
2010/3/28 Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com:
When the img tag was made, all
Hello,
I didn't get any reaction to my previous email unfortunately since I
think I brought up some valid points, but in any case I have some more
feedback, so I keep sending :)
I'm still trying to use the DnD for a real-world use, and keep hitting
problems. This is the HTML 5 draft at 7.9.4
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2010 21:11, Kelly Clowers kelly.clow...@gmail.com wrote:
For Theora. They haven't really said much about Vorbis AFAIK. And I think an
audio codec is less likely to have patent issues than a video codec
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Aaron Franco wrote:
I'm wondering if the H264 is supported in the HTML5 spec or is included
as a part of the spec?
No video codecs are required currently; as with images, it is left up to
the user agent to decide which codecs to implement.
--
Ian Hickson
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Aaron Franco wrote:
Due to the proprietary nature of the H.264 codec and the expensive
licensing fees that go along with it, I propose that the MPEGLA and the
Licensors of the codec disclose the patents royalty free if the codec is
included as a part of the HTML5
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Perry Smith wrote:
I'm trying to piece some things together. I end up with this idea:
ele.style.height returns the used value if display is not set to none.
ele.style.height should return the current specified value in the style=
attribute, which may or may not have
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, divya manian wrote:
I was curious to know what elements are not categorized so and found
legend element[2] did not figure in the list. It is listed under
phrasing content like i, strong, label and em (but all these are flow
elements as well).
In what sense is it listed
19 matches
Mail list logo
