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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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? :-)
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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)
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
: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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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.
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
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 +
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
87 matches
Mail list logo
