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

Hi sorry I wasn't responding last week; I was out of the office, catching up today. Thanks for all the comments! On the question of whether a video or audio tag should mention the codecs: we're really very supportive of the need for convergence and interoperability. For example, I took a

[whatwg] fragment and query identifies

I think this discussion is pretty orthogonal to the video/audio tags as well, but...here goes... as I understand it, fragment identifiers are (a) interpreted client-side, and not strictly 'part of' the URL (they are not sent to the server) and (b) have a format and syntax defined by the type

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

At 13:26 +0200 27/03/07, Maik Merten wrote: It's good to know that Apple considers interoperability as something important. Of course in case of the iPod the highly proprietary DRM scheme is preventing true interoperability if someone condiders DRM a must for his business needs and Apple's cred

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

At 19:28 +0200 27/03/07, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote: That is a matter of perception. Flash player which is the de-facto standard at this point provides support on at least linux, windows and Mac. We do risk that if this element is provided it could replace Flash video with something that onl

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

At 20:30 +0200 27/03/07, Maik Merten wrote: Actually the current draft requires user agents to support PCM in a .wav container (that's way stronger than what can be found in the section). I guess your points apply there, too? Yes, technically I think we should stay clean and write an HTML

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

At 6:40 +1000 28/03/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: Hi Dave, On 3/28/07, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> We really feel that the HTML spec. should say no more about video and audio formats than it does about image formats (which is merely to give examples), and we s

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

At 18:14 +0300 28/03/07, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Mar 27, 2007, at 23:40, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: I would be curious for the reasons that 3GPP has taken the requirement of vorbis out of the spec. Was that a decision based on technical reasons and could you please explain what these technical rea

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

At 9:48 +0100 28/03/07, Gervase Markham wrote: Dave Singer wrote: Yes. I re-iterate; we have nothing aganist the Ogg or Theora codecs; we just don't have a commercial reason to implement them, and we'd rather not have the HTML spec. try to force the issue. It just gets ugly (l

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

At 23:07 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote: Some implementations only support AVC level up to a magic level that you have to know. are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can play audio and video up to any bitrate, screensize, channel count etc., without dropping fra

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

At 22:27 +0200 2/04/07, Maik Merten wrote: Dave Singer schrieb: are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can play audio and video up to any bitrate, screensize, channel count etc., without dropping frames, getting behind, decoding badly, or other limits? That would

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

At 23:29 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote: On Apr 2, 2007, at 23:13, Dave Singer wrote: At 23:07 +0300 2/04/07, Henri Sivonen wrote: Some implementations only support AVC level up to a magic level that you have to know. are you telling us that all implementations of Ogg and Theora can

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

At 14:40 -0700 2/04/07, Ralph Giles wrote: On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 01:55:38PM -0700, Dave Singer wrote: [...]Does Ogg/Theora have a 'required features' or 'required version' in the bitstream? Theora doesn't currently have any profiles, and the spe

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

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

At 16:42 +0200 4/04/07, Maik Merten wrote: > Does this include the sony walkman w950i or modern nokia phones, or any phone for which opera mini or gmail (downloadable standalone application) are available? That's just another reason why we can't rely on dedicated video decoding hardware -

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

At 18:46 +0100 4/04/07, Nicholas Shanks wrote: On 4 Apr 2007, at 08:03, Vladimir Vukicevic wrote: I do agree that the codec discussion should be tabled I think you mean shelved. Or did you mean we have hit a wall here, so shelve it and get the chair to table it on the W3C floor? :-) "tab

Re: [whatwg] Give guidance about RFC 4281 codecs parameter

WARNING: I have CC'd the co-authors of the RFC, as I think they might like to see the discussion, comment on my answers, and possibly correct me. I also have a question whether there is a typo in the RFC... * * * * * Henry these are all great questions. Let me see how many I can answer.

Re: [whatwg] Give guidance about RFC 4281 codecs parameter

At 11:59 -0700 9/04/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: Hello, On 4/9/07, Dave Singer <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: WARNING: I have CC'd the co-authors of the RFC, as I think they might like to see the discussion, comment on my answers, and possib

Re: [whatwg] Give guidance about RFC 4281 codecs parameter

At 18:33 +1000 10/04/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: Recent discussion at Xiph around http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4281 suggests the use of the following parameters: # application/ogg; codecs="theora, vorbis" for Ogg Theora/Vorbis files # application/ogg; codecs="theora, speex" for Ogg Theora/Spee

Re: [whatwg] Give guidance about RFC 4281 codecs parameter

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? That would already tell you the intended disposition. Please note that rfc4281 also mentions the problem

Re: [whatwg] Semantic use of the element

At 18:12 -0700 12/04/07, Bill Mason wrote: Using an image would also avoid the issues that would come up if you were demonstrating a font via markup that a user doesn't happen to have installed. The browser could wind up defaulting to a completely different font than what you were attempting

Re: [whatwg] Web Documents off the Web (was Web Archives)

At 15:45 -0700 23/04/07, Jonas Sicking wrote: In any event, like Maciej, I think it would be great to have a cross browser format for this stuff. Yes. But to be clear, I think widgets and web archives are or may be slightly different. A widget package is a distribution package, I think

Re: [whatwg] Cue points in media elements

At 17:04 -0400 1/05/07, Brian Campbell wrote: On May 1, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Kevin Calhoun wrote: I believe that a cue point is "reached" if its time is traversed during playback. What does "traversed" mean in terms of (a) seeking across the cue point (b) playing in reverse (rewinding) and (c)

[whatwg] accessibility management for timed media elements, proposal

Hi we promised to get back to the whatwg with a proposal for a way to handle accessibility for timed media, and here it is. sorry it took a while... * * * * * To allow the UA to select among alternative sources for media elements based on users' accessibility preferences, we propose to:

Re: [whatwg] accessibility management for timed media elements, proposal

At 16:35 +0100 9/06/07, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: Dave Singer wrote: we promised to get back to the whatwg with a proposal for a way to handle accessibility for timed media, and here it is. sorry it took a while... Three cheers for Apple for trying to tackle some of the accessibility

Re: [whatwg] accessibility management for timed media elements, proposal

At 0:02 -0400 10/06/07, Brian Campbell wrote: On Jun 9, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Dave Singer wrote: I have to confess I saw the BBC story about sign-language soon after sending this round internally. But I need to do some study on the naming of sign languages and whether they have ISO codes. Is

Re: [whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the element

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, which has known patent encumberance and unknown submarine patents, while Apple is not happy to support Ogg

Re: [whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the element

At 10:10 +0100 25/06/07, Gervase Markham wrote: Dave Singer wrote: What is more, no-one with deep pockets has yet used the Ogg codecs seriously, and therefore there is no "honey pot" to attract the submarines (hm, do submarines like honey?). This is not the case with H.264 and

Re: [whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the element

At 21:30 +1000 25/06/07, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: In fact, it seems that Fraunhofer used to claim that Vorbis may infringe on some of their patents. They have since withdrawn that claim, which to me signifies they have done their homework and seen no reason to attack vorbis any longer. All they'd

Re: [whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the element

At 13:21 +0100 25/06/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote: According to Wikipedia, "AT&T is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged MPEG-4 patent infringement.[1][2][3]" I would be fascinated to see a statement from Apple, Inc. regarding this. I regret that we (like most companies

Re: [whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the element

At 22:18 -0700 25/06/07, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: I believe he means "free" as in "freedom" or "liberty". And not "free" as in "free of charge" or "gratis" as you are using the word. The words look and are spelled the same but they have very very different meanings. Anything that

Re: [whatwg] The issue of interoperability of the element

At 22:55 +1200 27/06/07, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On 6/27/07, Nicholas Shanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 27 Jun 2007, at 09:28, Maik Merten wrote: Browsers don't rely on the OS to decode JPEG or PNG or GIF either In my experience that seems to be exactly what t

Re: [whatwg] element comments

At 10:48 + 15/08/07, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > * I would also suggest to put "If the src attribute is omitted, > > there is no alternative image representation." after the last > > statement on the alt attribute. > > Done. (I think. I edited a bunch of stuff before reading your comment

Re: [whatwg] Video, Closed Captions, and Audio Description Tracks

ing this! * * * * * Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:22:00 -0700 From: Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [whatwg] accessibility management for timed media elements, proposal Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WHATWG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Original-To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org Lis

Re: [whatwg] Video, Closed Captions, and Audio Description Tracks

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

Re: [whatwg] Video, Closed Captions, and Audio Description Tracks

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 f

Re: [whatwg] Video, Closed Captions, and Audio Description Tracks

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" an

Re: [whatwg] Video, Closed Captions, and Audio Description Tracks

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

Re: [whatwg] Video, Closed Captions, and Audio Description Tracks

At 12:53 +0300 9/10/07, Henri Sivonen wrote: 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

Re: [whatwg] Video, Closed Captions, and Audio Description Tracks

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 th

Re: [whatwg] element feedback

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 wh

Re: [whatwg] element feedback - integration, fragments, and queries

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 NOT

Re: [whatwg] Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements

At 0:30 + 13/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Dave Raggett wrote: From an accessibility perspective the proposal lacks support for captioning. There should be a mechanism for enabling/disabling captions to avoid disadvantaging people who have difficulties with hearing the

Re: [whatwg] , , Timed Media Elements

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 and timed media and , a couple of questions have

Re: [whatwg] Give guidance about RFC 4281 codecs parameter

At 7:38 + 13/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote: > When the first element of a value is 'avc1', indicating H.264 (AVC) video [29], the second element is the hexadecimal representation of the following three bytes in the sequence parameter set NAL unit specified in [29]: 1) profile_idc, 2) a byte

Re: [whatwg] Audio(): loop() with 0 or negative value as argument

At 21:35 +0200 19/10/07, KÞi”tof Îelechovski wrote: This is asymmetric and it does not reflect the common usage: intro-canto-canto-canto-coda. You get intro-canto-coda-canto-canto instead. I have never encountered such a piece. Best regards, Chris I think Ian mis-spoke; loopEnd is where ever

[whatwg] cue points in media elements

Caution: cross-posted to whatwg and htmlwg; be careful with follow-ups! * * * * * We've been looking into both semantic and implementation considerations of cue points. We wonder whether cue ranges might not make more sense. Cues might often be used to establish appropriate parallel stat

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the element

At 0:48 + 26/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Mihai Sucan wrote: > > > > Shouldn't the video API include a way to toggle full screen on/off? > > This is a rather basic feature of videos. If it will not be > > available, video sites will hack around missing full screen supp

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the element

At 19:50 -0700 25/10/07, Jonas Sicking wrote: Dave Singer wrote: At 0:48 + 26/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Mihai Sucan wrote: > > > > Shouldn't the video API include a way to toggle full screen on/off? > > This is a rather basic feature of vi

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the element

lly have a 1000 different implementations of fullscreen mode devised by designers requiring the end user to figure out each time how to navigate that particular implementation. On 10/25/07, Jonas Sicking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave Singer wrote: > At 19:50 -0700 25/10/07, Jonas Sicking wrote

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the element

If we don't have a way for content to request full screen (markup, script, whatever), I'm OK with that. But I think that we should say why we left it out, in the spec., and not be silent. Otherwise we'll merely see browser makers doing their own extensions to do it anyway, and then we'll also

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the element

At 5:47 + 30/10/07, Ian Hickson wrote: > > Also, if the setting exists, it's far easier to trick users into > setting it than if it doesn't. Out of curiousity, is an automatic switch to full screen without the user's consent considered an annoyance/usability problem or a security/fish

[whatwg] minor comments on media element cue ranges

"When the current playback position of a media element changes (e.g. due to playback or seeking), the user agent must run the following steps. If the current playback position changes while the steps are running, then the user agent must wait for the steps to complete, and then must immediately

[whatwg] media element playback rates

We've been looking in detail at the relationship of play/pause to playback rate, and have a suggestion to simplify the design and make it easier both to implement and understand (we hope). - - - - - - - - - - - About playbackRate and defaultPlaybackRate in the current specification of media e

Re: [whatwg] codecs and containers

At 12:27 -0800 10/12/07, Charles wrote: >> This is probably going to cause some emotional responses, but I feel like I need to say this now. This argument has met with rational responses in previous threads. If you're interested in the origin of the current language, please review those

Re: [whatwg] codecs and containers

At 4:02 + 11/12/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote: On Dec 10, 2007 10:54 PM, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The w3c staff are, I believe, looking into this whole area, particularly with respect to IPR and licensing. The engineers, should, of course, work out what is best

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

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 (

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

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

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

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

Re: [whatwg] HTML 5, OGG, competition, civil rights, and persons with disabilities

. If you accept, we know you were being straightforward all along. Most of us are less than satisfied with SHOULD, and MAY is in the opposite direction to that desired. El Mar 11 Dic 2007, Dave Singer escribió: At 13:45 -0500 11/12/07, Fernando wrote: >Please reconsider the

Re: [whatwg] Ogg Vorbis / Theora vote

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 pr

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

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 d

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

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 compete

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

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 unaware of the extensive analysis done of other codecs, including those that are licensed. At 14:08 -0500

Re: [whatwg] Removal of Ogg is *preposterous*

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 comp

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

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 requi

Re: [whatwg] Patent on VP3 / Apple

At 21:04 -0500 13/12/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it's fashionable to slam Apple right now for being "the new Evil", but I don't want to play that game. Even if Apple's real motivation is entirely selfish (promote Quicktime over Ogg) can you blame them? That would be, by far, the easies

Re: [whatwg] Xiph.Org Statement Regarding the HTML5 Draft and the Ogg Codec Set

At 5:13 -0500 13/12/07, Christopher \"Monty\" Montgomery wrote: As our intent is not to suprise anyone (especially not the working group), I'm attaching a copy of the press statement we've prepared in response to the ongoing Ogg-in-HTML5 brouhaha. An HTML version of the same release is now at h

[whatwg] terminology (proprietary, standard, and so on)

At 15:53 -0500 13/12/07, Jeff McAdams wrote: Charles wrote: It's a standard because it has a public spec and because an organization issues those spec. In my experience, an organization (non-profit or not) can't simply publish their own specification and claim, "hey, this is a standard".

Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

At 16:12 +1100 14/12/07, Shannon wrote: Your suggestions are impractical and you are smart enough to know that. You claim neutrality but YOU removed the Ogg recommendation In recognition of the fact that work is ongoing, and that most, if not all, would prefer a mandate to a recommendation, t

Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

Thank you. I want to clarify something in what you say below. In case it helps calm things down. At 9:26 +0100 14/12/07, Stijn Peeters wrote: Simply bashing Apple/Nokia/Ian does not help here. It is not simply a matter of reverting the spec to say Theora is the recommended format (as you

Re: [whatwg] Patent on VP3 / Apple

At 0:32 + 15/12/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote: On Dec 14, 2007 2:22 AM, Dave Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: We are not trying to be obstructive but rather the reverse. We want a solution which is effective and we are willing to work to that end, but some things are pr

[whatwg] (non-)continued discussion of codecs

Friends I am dropping conversing on this subject on this list, unless something new happens. As I said before, I would prefer to work to resolve the underlying questions and concerns that make this an open issue in the first place (e.g. "what is the risk in the open-source codecs?", "is ther

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

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 availab

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

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

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

At 9:42 -0800 8/01/08, cramhead wrote: Is there a codec, potentially old or not currently functioning, that is free and that could be freely modified/improved to make a new free codec that Apple and Nokia and others would not challenge? Potentially, some funding could be donated by groups

Re: [whatwg] Reverse ordered lists

At 15:03 +0100 23/01/08, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Simon Pieters wrote: The lack of start='' would make the numbers update as the list is filled with s. This allows both for simplicitly for short lists and correct incremental rendering for large lists. No, the lack of an explicit start attri

Re: [whatwg] Reverse ordered lists

At 17:33 + 23/01/08, Philip Parker wrote: What about having it render as a standard unordered list ( ie, bulletpoints ) until the entire set of items has been received - and then re-rendering the list as a numbered type, all properly calculated how about assuming that if the source wants

Re: [whatwg] Reverse ordered lists

At 12:53 -0600 23/01/08, Siemova wrote: On Jan 23, 2008 12:18 PM, Dave Singer <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: how about assuming that if the source wants it numbered in reverse order, it knows what it is doing, and can tell the browser what number to start a

Re: [whatwg] Some questions

At 14:47 -0800 29/01/08, Charles wrote: > [Oliver] Subsequently you turned it into the well covered topic of codecs... The question was: As designed, is a cross-browser, cross-platform solution for exactly one format, which is whatever is decided on as the freely-implementable and royalt

Re: [whatwg] Some questions

At 16:06 -0800 29/01/08, Charles wrote: James, Since browsers are free to implement native support with a pluggable backend... I understand, but something makes me think that this problem won't get solved when developers are just free to solve it. (This isn't a criticism of browser devel

Re: [whatwg] Some questions

At 17:11 -0800 29/01/08, Charles wrote: Dave, What am I missing that you don't like? Are Adobe/Microsoft going to be update their Flash/Silverlight browser plug-ins in order to be first-class handlers in Safari on Mac and Windows? Why ask me what other vendors will do with their propriet

[whatwg] re-thinking "cue ranges"

WARNING: this email is sent to both the WhatWG and W3C Public HTML list, as it is a proposal. Please be careful about where you reply/follow-up to. The editors may have a preference (and if they do, I hope they express it). The following discussion is also in the attached proposal, but rep

Re: [whatwg] re-thinking "cue ranges"

apply to a sub-section of the video, make N timeranges and have the enter event of each flip in the appropriate explanation. Note that this works even with seeking, the way it's defined. There are, of course, other use cases. Does this help? Best Regards, Silvia. On Fri, May 23, 2

Re: [whatwg] re-thinking "cue ranges"

OK, some comments back on the cue range design. Sorry for the summer-vacation-induced delay in response! At 1:00 + 12/06/08, Ian Hickson wrote: > In the current HTML5 draft cue ranges are available using a DOM API. This way of doing ranges is less than ideal. First of all, it is ha

Re: [whatwg] Audio canvas?

As others have pointed out, I think you're asking for a new element, where you can 'draw' audio as well as pre-load it, just like canvas where you can load pictures and also draw them. This is not the element, any more than canvas is the element. It's an interesting idea, but you'd have t

Re: [whatwg] Audio canvas?

At 20:18 +0200 16/07/08, Dr. Markus Walther wrote: get/setSample( t, v, c). For the sketched use case - in-browser audio editor -, functions on sample regions from {cut/add silence/amplify/fade} would be nice and were mentioned as an extended possibility, but that is optional. I don't un

Re: [whatwg] Application deployment

FYI When faced with this question in MPEG (MPEG-21 files are container files too), we consulted with folks at the W3C (in Cannes, if I recall correctly) and decided: a) that a scheme type was wrong, and that 'picking a piece out of an archive' at the client-side was almost the definition of

Re: [whatwg] Application deployment

At 19:51 +1200 29/07/08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Dave Singer <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: c) that the contents of the container, once fetched and un-packed, logically 'shadow' the directory where the contai

Re: [whatwg] Application deployment

The situation is a lot better for archives (like MPEG-21 files) that have a directory at the front... At 20:10 -0400 29/07/08, Russell Leggett wrote: That is a performance killer. I don't think it is as much of a performance killer as you say it is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the standar

Re: [whatwg] Application deployment

At 21:45 -0700 29/07/08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Dave Singer <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Caching is on a full URL basis, of course. Once that is decided, then yes, I think that pre-cached items for a given URL ar

Re: [whatwg] Video : Slow motion, fast forward effects

At 20:10 +1200 7/08/08, Chris Double wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > playbackRate is the right way to do it, but maybe Fi

Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of capabilities

I think this is a good idea, but one rapidly runs into the problems talked about in the 'bucket' RFC, notably that there is not a universal language for naming codecs (4ccs etc). But it's proved useful in the past. In general, the source fallbacks are also a way to 'probe' this, albeit in a

Re: [whatwg] Video : Slow motion, fast forward effects

At 12:11 -0700 7/08/08, Jonas Sicking wrote: Dave Singer wrote: At 20:10 +1200 7/08/08, Chris Double wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Ian Hickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Biju [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 1:49 AM, Ian Hickson &

Re: [whatwg] Video : Slow motion, fast forward effects

At 12:23 -0700 7/08/08, Charles Iliya Krempeaux wrote: I don't think turning sound off is a good idea. well, the alternative is throwing a Not_supported error and not even showing the video. So, I still feel that for a/v movies, reversing the sound should be permitted but not required. Th

Re: [whatwg] Ressurecting a11y thread [was Re: Video, Closed Captions, and Audio Description Tracks]

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/Accessibility/Captioning_Work_Plan We could use some help from individuals who understand the ar

Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of capabilities

At 20:06 + 13/10/08, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Dave Singer wrote: In general, the source fallbacks are also a way to 'probe' this, albeit in a very different way. I'm not sure you can always get a definitive answer to the question "if I gave

Re: [whatwg] Video : Slow motion, fast forward effects

At 22:41 + 13/10/08, Ian Hickson wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Dave Singer wrote: > > Would you expect the audio to be played backwards too? I think that's extra credit and optional. It's now not allowed, though I suppose an author could always have two elements an

Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of capabilities

At 7:40 +0200 14/10/08, Nils Dagsson Moskopp wrote: What's a "portal page" - wouldn't it be the job of the Browser / Media Framework to prompt for codec installs ? They are used today; it's a page with a 'published URL' through which people normally gain access to the site. You can check th

Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of capabilities

Pitching in here, I think it's OK if we want to go to a two-state answer -- but those answers are No and Maybe, not No and Yes. There are, after all, vanishingly small numbers of mime types where I can be 'completely' (within reason) confident of a 'yes' answer. On the other hand, given a mim

Re: [whatwg] video tag: pixel aspect ratio

At 23:32 +0100 17/11/08, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: I should point out that the pixelratio attribute isn't only for authors, it's also useful when the media framework used doesn't recognize the (pixel) aspect ratio even when it's correctly set. From reading the mplayer man page I see that AVI file

  1   2   >