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

2007-03-26 Thread Dave Singer
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

[whatwg] fragment and query identifies

2007-03-26 Thread Dave Singer
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.

2007-03-27 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-03-28 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-03-28 Thread Dave Singer
At 20:30 +0200 27/03/07, Maik Merten wrote: Actually the current audio draft requires user agents to support PCM in a .wav container (that's way stronger than what can be found in the video section). I guess your points apply there, too? Yes, technically I think we should stay clean and

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

2007-03-28 Thread Dave Singer
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 should strive

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

2007-03-28 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-03-28 Thread Dave Singer
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 (like the 3G

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

2007-04-02 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-04-02 Thread Dave Singer
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.

2007-04-02 Thread Dave Singer
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.

2007-04-02 Thread Dave Singer
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 spec has no optional decoder

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

2007-04-03 Thread 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. Surely people have comments or questions

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

2007-04-04 Thread Dave Singer
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.

2007-04-04 Thread Dave Singer
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? :-)

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

2007-04-09 Thread Dave Singer
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

2007-04-09 Thread Dave Singer
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 possibly correct me. I also

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

2007-04-10 Thread Dave Singer
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/Speex

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

2007-04-11 Thread Dave Singer
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 that

Re: [whatwg] Semantic use of the font element

2007-04-12 Thread Dave Singer
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)

2007-04-23 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Cue points in media elements

2007-05-02 Thread Dave Singer
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)

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

2007-06-09 Thread Dave Singer
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

2007-06-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-06-25 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-06-25 Thread Dave Singer
At 13:21 +0100 25/06/07, Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves wrote: According to Wikipedia, ATT 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] img element comments

2007-08-15 Thread Dave Singer
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 so it

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

2007-10-08 Thread Dave Singer
: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 List-Post: mailto:whatwg@lists.whatwg.org List-Subscribe: http://lists.whatwg.org

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

2007-10-08 Thread Dave Singer
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

2007-10-08 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-10-09 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-10-09 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-10-09 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] video element feedback

2007-10-10 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-10-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Apple Proposal for Timed Media Elements

2007-10-12 Thread Dave Singer
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] video, object, Timed Media Elements

2007-10-12 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-10-15 Thread Dave Singer
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

[whatwg] cue points in media elements

2007-10-23 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the video element

2007-10-25 Thread Dave Singer
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 support.

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the video element

2007-10-25 Thread Dave Singer
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 videos

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the video element

2007-10-26 Thread Dave Singer
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: Dave Singer wrote: At 0:48 +

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the video element

2007-10-29 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Full screen for the video element

2007-10-30 Thread Dave Singer
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

[whatwg] minor comments on media element cue ranges

2007-10-31 Thread Dave Singer
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

2007-11-02 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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] Ogg Vorbis / Theora vote

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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 completely

Re: [whatwg] several messages regarding Ogg in HTML5

2007-12-11 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

2007-12-13 Thread Dave Singer
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,

Re: [whatwg] The truth about Nokias claims

2007-12-14 Thread Dave Singer
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

2007-12-14 Thread Dave Singer
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 probably better

[whatwg] (non-)continued discussion of codecs

2007-12-14 Thread Dave Singer
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 there

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2008-01-07 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Video codec requirements changed

2008-01-07 Thread Dave Singer
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] Reverse ordered lists

2008-01-23 Thread Dave Singer
At 15:03 +0100 23/01/08, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Simon Pieters wrote: ol start=100 reverse The lack of start='' would make the numbers update as the list is filled with lis. This allows both for simplicitly for short lists and correct incremental rendering for large lists. No, the lack of

Re: [whatwg] Reverse ordered lists

2008-01-23 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Reverse ordered lists

2008-01-23 Thread Dave Singer
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 at? it still seems

Re: [whatwg] Some video questions

2008-01-29 Thread Dave Singer
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 video a cross-browser, cross-platform solution for exactly one format, which is whatever is decided on as the freely-implementable and

Re: [whatwg] Some video questions

2008-01-29 Thread Dave Singer
At 16:06 -0800 29/01/08, Charles wrote: James, Since browsers are free to implement native video 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

Re: [whatwg] Some video questions

2008-01-29 Thread Dave Singer
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 video handlers in Safari on Mac and Windows? Why ask me what other vendors will do with their

[whatwg] re-thinking cue ranges

2008-05-22 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] re-thinking cue ranges

2008-05-23 Thread Dave Singer
-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, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Dave

Re: [whatwg] re-thinking cue ranges

2008-07-09 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Audio canvas?

2008-07-16 Thread Dave Singer
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 audio element, any more than canvas is the img element. It's an interesting idea, but

Re: [whatwg] Audio canvas?

2008-07-16 Thread Dave Singer
At 20:18 +0200 16/07/08, Dr. Markus Walther wrote: get/setSample(samplePoint t, sampleValue v, channel 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

Re: [whatwg] Application deployment

2008-07-28 Thread Dave Singer
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

2008-07-29 Thread Dave Singer
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 container came from. It sounds

Re: [whatwg] Application deployment

2008-07-29 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Application deployment

2008-07-30 Thread Dave Singer
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 are in the general cache

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

2008-08-07 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of video capabilities

2008-08-07 Thread Dave Singer
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

2008-08-07 Thread Dave Singer
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED

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

2008-08-07 Thread Dave Singer
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.

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

2008-08-22 Thread Dave Singer
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

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

2008-10-13 Thread Dave Singer
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 video elements and could make

Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of video capabilities

2008-10-13 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] Scripted querying of video capabilities

2008-11-13 Thread Dave Singer
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

Re: [whatwg] media elements: Relative seeking

2008-11-24 Thread Dave Singer
I don't think you mean 'relative' here, which I would take to be go forward 10 seconds, but 'proportional', please go to 60% of the way through. 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

Re: [whatwg] media elements: Relative seeking

2008-12-01 Thread Dave Singer
At 2:06 + 2/12/08, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 2 Dec 2008, Chris Double wrote: On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Ian Hickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For the few servers that don't support seeking, duration is not available. Note that that is non-conforming at the moment. You have

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on video accessibility

2008-12-09 Thread Dave Singer
At 21:33 +1300 9/12/08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: For what it's worth, loading an intermediate document of some new type which references other streams to be loaded adds a lot of complexity to the browser implementation. It creates new states that the decoder can be in, and introduces new

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on video accessibility

2008-12-10 Thread Dave Singer
At 14:40 +1300 11/12/08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Dave Singer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 21:33 +1300 9/12/08, Robert O'Callahan wrote: For what it's worth, loading an intermediate document of some new type which references other